Su 37 Best Of The Best. It’s extremly flexible and has more math and physics than it’s competitors.
Again that’s my opinion only.
The other ones F 22 and Eurofighter are in my opinion somehow behind for the moment.
There is no doubt that the Americans and Europeans are fully capable to develop similar technologies in a short period of time.

All of them echant the eye of the specialist and show us how the mankind is capable to make progress even though is in miliitary area.

Whishing them all good luck with their new projects, and to make the air transportation more safe for all of us.

I dont care what the specs for any of those planes are but that blue plane, i think the su-30 completely destroyed all of them. There is no denying it. The F-22 couldnt even come close to that. Who ever denies it is a moron.

The funny thing is, the F-22 can carry only 2,000lb (910 kg) weapons in its internal bay. All other load such as weapons or fuel tanks has to be carried outside. But as soon as something is mounted on the outside of the plane, it loses its stealth capabilities. Besides that, its aerodynamically efficiency is decreased, which results in less performance.

It is great to see these planes being built now, i’m sure we can all agree that these are the birds we dreamt of as kids! All of these planes are amazing this is my first time seeing the su-37 and it is INCREDIBLE!!!! Double loop, badass tailslides, and awesome stalls! I have seen the raptor demo and can say you should check it out live ASAP! Good luck to everyone!God bless America!

Yes, the US always have built nice weather planes (F-16 at first)or big, under powered tech-monsters (like F/A-18E, F-111), with great features, but only one difference to the optimized load and configuration is killing the high cost dream (like the compromize for the stealth due to its limitted bay volume … and they didn’t learn from the past, forgot the lesosns from korea and vietnam, that with little effort BVR is absorbed, and close combat is important. So, no question the Raptor is already the third.
The first? For me, the situation and the pilot will decide. So India and Europe have the best fighters! (SU-30MKI is the best of the family)

One important factor everybody who has made a comment seems to forget! Yes manuverbility is very important. Raptor wins top down for following reasons. 1) Is you cant be seen you have a amazing advantage of first shot. 2) American pilots who fly Raptors are far superior compared to Russian and or european pilots. These 2 factors alone negate manuverability.

– I have read articles about the F-22 and the Su-30’s, and Su-30’s enthusiast based superiority on manuevarability which does not even make F-22 inferior either; but the real issue in an actual air war nowadays, is who can see first and shot first. Everything becomes moot… In a war nowadays pilots would prefer exploiting their advantage if they have and they will always think of surviving the conflict & go home. So why fight in fair dogfight if you can avoid it.

- F-22 will not be put in service if it is not worth it’s cost and it is not necessary. It’s predecessors, the F-15 & F-16 has already out-lived its usefulness, although no any fighter planes have really bested it in actual combat. But they are now old planes which needs replacement, and it’s replacement must be better. The cost in the development of the F-22 & with the U.S air forces tradition for air superiority will never tolerate such a proud history be tarnished by an unreliable replacement.

The issue on manueverability is a stuff for air show but not for real air superioty combat - that is to wipe out the enemey threat from both the air and land and sea. That is how I understand the need for being able to see first and shot first before being detected. Actuallt the stunts of the both the Su-37 & F-22 proves nothing because for them to entertain the enthusiast it has to fly quite slow to be seen. But if stealthiness is the issue, they should not be seen - correct me if I am wrong.

I love we get these comments about us learning from the russians about thrust vectoring. Dosent anyone remember the early 90’s we had the x-31(wow looks like the eurofighter), the f-15 ACTIVE(wow looks like the su-37), the f-16 matv, and the f-18 harv. With us built radars the goal is to not get into dogfights its air dominace. If it were to come down to a close in dogfight we are letting the missles do the work with helmet mounted cueing. Thrust vectoring is great for airshows but do you think an su-37 or hundreds could actually dominate any monder countrys air defenses? Not a chance they will just light up every radar screen and be sitting ducks. The f-22 will supercruise over a battle space using its sensors and stealth to get a godseye view of whats going on and send it to every asset in the area to dominate. The mair reason for thrust vectoring on the f-22 is when your crusing at 60,000 ft traditional aircraft have a much larger turning radius. When your flying 1,000 miles an hour at 60,000 ft the thrust vectoring makes this a much more efficent. But I’m not suprised to hear the russians invented thrust vectoring I think a lot of the people on hear are from the propaganda ministry and cant wait for mother russia to rise again.

Wanna know why? Because X-31 (VECTOR program) was a joint venture between the US Navy, Germany’s defense procurement agency BWB, Boeing’s Phantom Works, and the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company based in Germany. EADS, the same company that built the Eurofighter.
See the left of the two flags on the tail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockwell-MBB_X-31_vectorpaddles.jpg
The X-31 was built by Rockwell and German company Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, which is today part of EADS.

I know that but lets be honest, who do you think bears the financial burder for every international project. ex. International Space Station. Granted, International cooperation is great but I think we have let this go way too far. This sums up the project

Program Management
An international test organization of about 110 people, managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA—redesignated ARPA from March 1993 to 1996), conducted the flight tests at Dryden and Palmdale. NASA was responsible for flight test operations, aircraft maintenance, and research engineering after the project moved to Dryden. As the research flight program matured, the test organization declined in size to approximately 60 persons.

The X-31 was the first international experimental aircraft development program administered by a U.S government agency and was a key effort of the NATO Cooperative Research and Development Program.

The ITO director and NASA’s X-31 project manager at Dryden was Gary Trippensee.

I’m not tryinng to argue. I think that the Eurofighter is kick ass big time but when people say the europeans and americans should take vectored thrust lessons from the Russians that sould like a post right out of the Putin cheerleading section.

Eric
Aug 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 am
One important factor everybody who has made a comment seems to forget! Yes manuverbility is very important. Raptor wins top down for following reasons. 1) Is you cant be seen you have a amazing advantage of first shot. 2) American pilots who fly Raptors are far superior compared to Russian and or european pilots. These 2 factors alone negate manuverability.

- Just a note on your comments here. The F22 may well be the stealthiest of the three (indeed the EF2000 isn’t stealth at all) and i agree, that presents a major advantage in engagements from a distance (out of visual range) but in regards to the foolish and flippant comment about american pilots being superior made by this Eric character, my answer to that is that in my experience (one of unique insight) I have known very many USAF pilots and ground crew who care more about their image and ego and are thus more triggerhappy and wreckless during engagement. Compare this to the discipline and sharpness of the RAF and other european airforces. If superior means most likely to fire the first shot then you would be correct but be careful when making statements about the superiority of airforce personnel without defining in which sense you mean. I should also point out that the USAF has many fine pilots who do an excellent job alongside other NATO forces.

Hey, guys, being Russian and living in US I must say it is nicely musically arranged and stitched together Su-37 stunt. It will impress any gypsy… they like bells and vessels. But just look at it from design point and you’ll see outdated design with newly squeezed in navigation and thrust technology in it. Truly useless body style in a now days “first see - you are winner” combat. This technology will be appealing to those rogue regimes that still honor heroic suicide attacks of suicide boomers e.t.c. For them visual maneuvers is a selling point, just as everything visual…
Raptor is the choice here! Super design, super technology - super winner!
This is what makes me a proud AMERICAN.
As for the Russians, I’ll tell - you have a lot of bright heads out here, but seriously, most of them, who is not busy now stealing from it’s own people wealth are looking how to make sure they have some nice cozy place to retire in a western world. Even those who steal - all of them making provisions for the safe heaven in a “Wild West”
Dear Russian motherland - stop trying to impress Arabs, Chinese and Latin American communist - to sell them outdated arms - impress your own people by giving them freedom to speak and develop honest lives! And they will thank you with their creativity and hard work. This will bring them all happiness. Ability to sell oil and export AK47 only will produce not wealth but thieves and corrupt government ONLY!

Being a non military pilot from AMERICA I’m gonna start out with some national pride, there being we are the super power, the Russains are a mere shell of a ONCE great power including a vast airforce. The Su line is highly sophisticated technology but reppresents to me a nation to proud to rebuild there roof with a brand new concept but instead trying to keep putting a new cast on the wing of a aged, tired, and dying old bird.Other than that I like the Su its mean as hell looking something the 22 doesn’t really strike me as even though it’s going to be the best fighter plane for the next fifty years or so.As for the euro-boys well they make for a pretty good fight if they jump some Japanese F-2’s but should really be kept out of this discussion.

hiiiiii the su-27 and su-30 are realy fantastic,dont tell me the american pilots are superior than the russians and the european pilots these pilots are highly skild they are 1000tims btr than there american counterparts,come on the american pilots were outmanurd by the indian aitforce pilots during the cope india air excersice….

If “real world” dogfighting were all about performing fancy low-energy acrobatics, then I’d probably pick an SU. But since maintaining a high energy state is paramount to survival in the aerial combat arena, and that stealth offers such an overwhelming advantage (as evidenced by recent Red Flag stats of Raptor vs. F-15/16s) then this whole “which is better” question becomes moot.

Its too naive to believe that stealth gives total invulnerability, so you can just “shoot and forget”. The only real war experience modern US planes had were outdated Soviet junk in the Middle East and Kosovo, and hopefully they won’t ever have to face anything better than that.

With the availability of computers that can apply multiple various algorithms in seconds, Russians (and who knows who else) have been developing military aircraft radars with anti-stealth capability. Plus, its much easier for ground radar systems/networks to detect stealth than for the one radar on the actual airplane, therefore having a proper ground anti-stealth system and communication will be the key to deter stealth. In the end, its the whole army against another, so it doesn’t really matter whether the plane x is better than plane y.

well, isn’t it interesting!!
the usa always claimed it was the best
well, their F-15s and F-16s lost 10-0 to not the sukhois but the Mig21 bisons of the IAF .

well, the usa wants to say their mathematically challenged pilots are the best! Remember WW2 and th e jap Zeros!!!
the eurofighter came to grief in indradhanush 07: wow the RAf “taught the IAF”.
i live and work here in the usa: compete against their best brains in Medicine: and i’m not impressed
so why should it be any different in a more simplistic and poorer category of people like the pilots of the USAF?
I love when Hollywood tells us that the USA is the best!! In what???
the “world” series in baseball!!! or ” Foot ball” when no other important nation of Earth plays those sports!!!
Good. Delusional status is what we need!

think of this: its not the machine that wins a war: its the man / woman behind it.
Math levels in the usa are at a disgusting low: i know , my kids study here!
why math? and for an airforce jock?
think: we get data aquisition in a series of numerical inputs: from the AWACS
then, we need to feed these digits into our computer or decide mentally what these numbers mean: i.e. where is the bogey going? how quickly to intercept it.
During Cope India exercises, the USAF fed data to both us and iaf pilots simultaneously.
the indians reacted much more quickly than the usaf trained pilots who should really be at home with data from THEIR OWN AWACS operators!
Hence the 10-0 scores.
now as for the comparison of passive v/s active phased array radars etc and their dectection superiorities vis a vis each other: don’t forget the su30mki is still evolving as is the raptor.
it is only a matter of months that any advantage gained by one in electronics / countermeasures is completely negated by the other side.
Brings us back to the basics: THE PILOT.
the usaf trains redon red thanks to the lousey indoctrination of red Flag.
the indians dont use russian ground control intercepts but fly - as the USAF pilots noted- “blue on blue” - something we saw in Hollywoods Tom Cruise in ” Top Gun”.
I hope i made my point.

Hmmm… i’m not goin to pretend like i know alot about any of this which is good because that makes my logic simple. Each jet has its own advantages and will be used as to work upon those advantages. The F-22 has it’s stealth and will as I understand, will usually get the first shot, which, as i understand, is critical. But, as I understand, the F-22 is not stricktly a fighter but a small bomber and recon plane as well. I don’t believe that the F-22 was specifically designed for dog fighting but for overall use. This is the first time I have seen the other planes and they each look incredible. As for pilots, I’m sure there are extremely good pilots in each of these air forces, some better then others. The air craft and pilots are obviously all incredible, that’s why they are featured here, so it all depends on the situation if they were to ever fight one another. It wouldn’t be the same everytime and I doubt any would completly dominate. So overall this question is irrelevant and everyone can pick their favorites. I pick the F-22. Mostly because I’m an American and I like the stealth aspect. It’s good to be sneaky.

As for this character above me, I’m sorry that you seem to dislike the country you live in but there’s obiously a reason you do. I agree that our overall math skills are dissapointing but the average person does not create nor pilot a fighter jet. And I’m going to pull the, ‘There’s a reason we’re the Super Power of Super Powers.’

Wow there is nothing to decide really! There is NO jet in the world that comes even close to the F-22. It is by far #1 and soon to be #2 is the F-35. Even the F-35 can not be touched by any of these other fighter jets in the world. Anyone who says that their fighter can hang with ours is in denial and needs to come to the realization that that is simply not true. Look at it this way, the 22 has been in fights with over 5 F-15’s at a time and taken them all down with ease. The F-15 has rained as the most dominant fighter for years, why do you think the US has the title of air dominance? The 22 took them out so easily what makes anyone think their fighters even have a fighting chance? Sorry to all out there who ever have to encounter the 22 or 35 in battle…

guys, you’re missing the point.
it’s not the aircraft that wins a dog fight, it’s the man behind the machine.
usa has a problem: it’s level of education is disastrous: math and science are ignored.
the average fighter jock is not very smart.
every technological gain from one side is quickly matched - if not improved on - by the adversary.
if a mig 21 bis - a 50 yr old design - can defeat a f-15 10 out of 10 times,…. we have a problem!!!
the first dictum of combat is to never under-estimate your enemy.
every simulation in the usaf is biased heavily: they still think their mathematically and intellectually challenged men are BETTER than the rest of the world!!
my kids are straight As in the usa.
give them an indian test for their level…. oops
THINK!!!!
my medical colleagues: the best of the usa: cannot work out simple mental math problems without a calculator.
makes me cringe
it doesn’t matter what a single axis thrust vectoring F-22 can do when compared to a 2 to multi axis sukhoi 30 mki can do.
sorry,
the writing is “on the wall”.

This place smells like the palace of USA BULLSHIT.
Please, swallow your national stars and stripes pride.
When I read things like “American pilots who fly Raptors are far superior compared to Russian and or european pilots” posted by Eric, I can think of only one thing. Don’t watch so many movies!
I’m very very sure when it comes to actual skill and training specially RAF pilots and other European pilots indeed are not lowskill as you think, I even dare say they are the better ones compared to American pilots. Beeing cowboys doesn’t make American pilots good pilots. As for the discussion witch is the better fighter, I guess well never know untill some a**hole president unleashes World War 3.

first place f-22 due to its stealth technolodgy ands its state of the art avionics. 2nd place I,d say the eurofighter better tecnological advances then the russians and rivals the f-22 in agility. And 3rd the sukhoi-37 it lacks in some of the tecnolodgical advances of the f-22 and eurofighter, however in a dog fight could rival either aircraft in agility.

1 on 1 f-22 takes out any of those planes. DO that math NOOPERS 1 on 1 thos eplanes go down. so what do you do when a a group of american planes b1 stealth f-117 stealth and f-22 raptors come knocking at your door ? f-22 wins hands down. 1vs 1 or your country. lol NO WORRIES IRAN WILL be PROVING groun for raptors !

Hey Vince you sound like that next a**hole president I was talking about. Maybe not Iran but send your planes towards a country that has a military and airforce worth while and maybe you won’t sound so much like a trigger happy cowboy after some of your f-117 and f-22 get shot down. Do the math on that.

I got news for all of you who say that American pilots are not the best, and the F-22 Raptor is not the deadliest and best fighter in the world. You must be ignorant dumb asses who have their own countries pride in mind, but so am I, so I can understand how you feel. America pilots and technology have controlled the skies of every country during each war. American pilot kill ratios have been staggering. Upwards around 25 to 1, and even better during WWII and Vietnam (Who saved all of your butts from Hilter, oh yea that right) And if I am not mistaken, the only time American pilots went against Russian pilots on a consistent basis, was in Korea. I think we all know how those battles ended up. With Americans shooting down many more MIGS piloted by Russians. Look at HISTORY! Don’t worry about videos and demostrations, look at the facts. Russians are a very innovative people, who can develop fighter jets as good as the F-22, but the SU-37 and SU-30 are not it. First shot first kill ends the debate. I understand other countries have developed air defense systems, but these systems are not on par with the F-22 Raptor. This fighter is the best and will be the best for a LONG time. Maybe if we looked at the past and the performance of American technology and fighter pilots, we would all understand, HISTORY TELLS NO LIES. Most of you are a bunch of morons, supporting arguments that have never been proven. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OTHERS COUNTRIES GO TO WAR WITH AMERICA, THEY LOSE!!!! And I think thats been proven. The writing is on the wall, its been on the wall for along time.
P.S. - For those who say our President is a moron, I hope some terrorist attack your country and kill your citizen with commerical airlines. Its called standing up for you country and its people, not backing down like cowards, which weve seen plenty of that from the rest of you.
GOLD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!

Hey nick, indeed some of our f117’s and f22’s might get shot down, but their enemies will be gone, all gone. Better than sending our birds “toward a country that has a military and air force” why don’t you send some of those guys towards us. They’ll be wetting their pants before they get out of their briefing rooms. We were told how powerful the Iraqi military was before we kicked their buts in a matter of days. Talk is cheap. You ought to be glad your not talking German. We’ll be saving your asses again, while you maintain your elitist attitudes.

the F/A-22 is the best, no question; the best systems, thrust-vectoring, supercruise, and stealth, all combined in a highly capable design. true, many design features were cut in favor of stealth, and the plane could’ve been a lot better if it hadn’t been designed for it, but still, the Su-37 and Typhoon pale in comparison to the Raptor. hats off, to Lockheed Martin, though if the YF-23 had had TV, maybe Northrop could’ve pulled it off instead… down with the Sewer Hornet!

and as for pilot skill, we have Red Flag, the Air Force Fighter Weapons School at Nellis, and the Navy Fighter Weapons School at Fallon, better known as TopGun. these programs, coupled with elite Aggressor squadrons who fly and fight using Russian and other would-be hostile tactics, make for excellent pilot training. true, the Russians have some great pilots, and so do the Europeans, but overall American pilots beat all. and the F-117 sucks, has to fly in the dark, rain/bad weather diminishes stealthiness, and it was designed as a fighter, came out as an attack jet that can’t maneuver or fly fast at all. so much for the so-called “stealth fighter”…

forgot to mention that the Israelis tend to have the best pilots and tactics, mainly because we give them the equipment and training necessary to survive in the Mid East. great country, Israel, one of the more capable militaries in the world. plus they have the best maintenance turn-around times.

To Jonathan. Yes I can see how you guys win all wars. A tie in Korea, got your asses kicked in Vietnam and fighting a long lost causse in Irak against bearded guys with AK’s, The only real war you guys were in and that was won is WO II, and that war is mainly won by the Russians and the allround SUPERIOR NUMBERS by allied troops (not superior skill).
To Sigmeister. The Iraqi military never was powerfull. Having a very large number of untrained men available does not make a powerfull military, same goes for Iran, that your so eager to invade next.
Wonder why your country is barking to North Korea and don’t just invade them like your planning to do with Iran? Skared they might get some real help from China? Or you just gonna kick there butts as easely too you think? And by the way. The way your country tries to put preassure on some European countries and try to get things done your way for WO 2 and how you guys so called helped us. I’m cinda sorry inb some ways I don’t speak German. And by the way, your president still is a moron!

Korea was not a tie, we won in stopping communist aggression and creating an economic powerhouse in the Far East. Vietnam was political pussyfooting and interference, not an indication of American military prowess. if anything, it’s amazing our boys didn’t get their asses whooped in the first day of fighting, what with all the stupid restrictions and ROE they had to follow. and we won the WAR in Iraq, but we’re losing the occupation, and when you look at it, how many countries have been successful in occuppying a hostile country peacefully? maybe if the analysts at old Five-Sides had gotten it together and thought ahead of time in their predictions, this mess would never’ve occurred. and we won WW2, no question. American ingenuity, skill, resourcefulness made as much a difference as greater numbers, and remember that Hitler sent the bulk of his forces to stop the American/British invasion, drawing off forces from the Eastern Front. and Europe should be a little more grateful; we gave them the Marshall Plan, free of charge, and helped rebuild all of Western Europe. as for Iraq, we never should’ve gone in, we shouldn’t go into Iran or North Korea, becasue, as despicable as they are, they’re sovereign nations that we can try to reason with. although it would be a lot easier and lot less messier to just invade and get it right this time, seeing as Iran and North Korea’s only use for nuclear power is obviously military; in Iran’s case, it’s nuking Israel. and of course we’re scared of fighting with China, economic implications not withstanding. in 20 years, at their current rate of weapons modification, upgrading, and technology stealing, they’ll be able to beat us any time, anywhere, conventionally. and of course George Bush is a moron, whoever said differently? same with Putin, Musharaf, and that president of Iran i can never spell right. come to think of it, i didn’t spell Pakistan’s prez either… ^_^

pilots well I,d say every nation especially u.s, Britain, Israel and the European nations, france , germany etc have all great pilots on diff skill levels. I,ll give an example I,m from canada and they had a competion with f-18s with americans that year a canadian one the competion so I guess every country has great pilots of every skill level. fighter supremacy well thats another factor added with the pilot skill that brings the full picture in to view.

america did not save us from hitler you muppet.here is a brief history. hitler invaded poland. britain declared war becouse of that.everyone else started to get involved america did not want to help untill they got bombed there selves (pearl harbour)then the russians had the biggest part in defeating the germans. america missed 3 years of the first world war and 2 of the second world war 5 years out of a total of 10.

Yes, I remember reading that Ben. I also remember dutch, belgian, british and other pilots winning those. Is the reason for me to reply in the first place and my point exactly.

To F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! I don’t think it’s going to take the chinese 20 years, more like 8 to 10. Even more reason for US and EU not to argue but work togetter. We all know what can happen when a new superpower emerges.

cj first, i guess; a great portion of America DID want to get involved in the conflict erupting across the globe - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, hamstrung by an Isolationist Congress, could only supply aid through the Lend-Lease act, but he dearly wanted to enter the war with the Allies. and after Pearl Harbor he was able to. and please keep in mind that Hitler sent most of his forces against the American/British invasion from the west, NOT the eastern Russian front. He believed that if he could stop the Western Allies, then Germany would be a little more secure (only the Eastern Front to deal with) and he could stop the Russians and negotiate on his own terms. and the actual fighting for the war began when Japan invaded Korea in the early 1900s, then in Manchuria in 1931-2. and are you forgetting all the Russian atrocities against the Germans? and vice versa?
and Nick, I agree, at this rate it probably wont take as long as 20 years; that number is 5 years old already. the problem is that the Chinese are modernizing by stealing our technology; UH-60 Blackhawk and F-16 Fighting Falcon engines, AEGIS, F-14 parts, AIM-120 AMRAAM, the list goes on. and no, this isn’t conspiracy. the pentagon and numerous other sources have confirmed this and arrested multiple arms dealers, mainly Korean and Taiwanese.
and Ben, what planes were each side flying? if the Americans were flying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, then of course they lost, the plane is inferior to even the original Hornets, they’ve confirmed this in tests. read this:
that’ll explain all you need to know, and then some.

The fact is indeed that Hitler send most of his troops to the western front, but also a fact is that the British and American invaders were greater in number then the Russians. Because I remember reading about the Can/Us contest. Both were flying f-18’s.

there’s a difference between the F-18 and the F/A-18, and which model was it? the A, B, C, D, E, or F? as explained in that article i listed earlier, in tests involving both F/A-18Cs and F/A-18E/Fs, the regular Hornets flew circles around the new Sewer Bugs. one pilot was quoted as saying “We outran them, we outflew them, and we ran them outa gas. I was embarrassed for them.” and the Americans didn’t have T-34s, Nick, the Russians were the ones with the massed mobile armor columns.

it’s nice to see such chauvenism - we need more of it! It’s always better to meet an enemy pilot / s who are so over confident that they cannot see the writing on the wall.
so, if the USAF fields the “best of the best, sir!” in the “best of the best aircraft” , we have nothing to fear. Right?

those weren’t MiG-21s, they were Su-30s, which mind you are way newer than the F-15C Eagles they defeated. besides, the F-15 was never intended to take on smaller, more nimble fighters like the Fishbed, except at BVR. F-16s and F/A-18s were designed for that. and it’s not just the USAF. the USN, until recently (Sewer Hornet), the Israelis, the Russians (some of ‘em), the Brits, etc. all have highly capable pilots, as do the Pakistanis, Indians, Taiwanese, South Koreans, French, Germans, Turkmen, etc.

what damage? all that’s pure fact! the Su-30 IS newer than the F-15C, MiG-21’s are more nimble and harder to see than F-15’s and F-14’s, and that is one of the reasons why we have F-16’s and F/A-18’s, to augment the bigger, more expensive, more complex, and less numerous birds. realism part of my brain? what? all i said is true AND verified; DEAL WITH IT!

Verified? I’ll tell you something thats verified. That the british flew the more dangerous and close to ground missions during the gulfwar. The superior flying skills of your pilots must also be the reason why only the brits got shot down by friendly fire, because your highly capable pilots really know how to recognize friend from foe. Like that little helicopter incident during the last gulfwar, when a USAF fighter shot down a UK helicopter. The simple British reply, when did you guys LAST see an Iraqi Helicopter caught the Americans with their pants down and had no answer what so ever. Like that highly capable USAF pilot who flew right true the cables of a skilift in Switserland and killed a bunch of people. Like I said before cowboys don’t make good pilots.

geezus christ, you’d think i’d just insulted somebody… I’ve never had a bad thing to say about the brits (except their lack of supercarriers, which would’ve made the Falklands a hell of a lot easier), they have many of the best special forces, tanks, weapons, etc. true, the Brits flew low-level bomb runs in 1991 and suffered many losses as a result, and i commend them on their skill in flying through a flakstorm and still delivering their bombs on-target. Panavia Tornadoes are just as capable as (some would say more capable than) F-16’s, F/A-18’s, and FB-111’s. America has messed up in the past and present, it’s true; that helo shoot-down, the recent tank strafing, there’s a reason it’s called fog of war, it was our fault and the fault of IFF equipment, i’m not trying to justify, i’m trying to explain here. and the Iraqis DID have Mi-24 Hind gunships, which could’ve done some damage to coalition armor columns, including your beloved British Challenger 2’s. and true, American pilots have snapped wires in Italy and Switzerland, unfortunate and we should’ve (i dont know if we did, but i dont think we did) made full apologies, reparations, and punished the pilots involved and made sure regulations regarding low-level overflights of friendly territory be followed.

but you’re wrong; cowboys may not make good “politically reliable” play-by-the-book soldiers, but they usually do make for intuitive shit-hot pilots! and no, that is NOT TOPGUN talking! I have family in the military, mister!

and what did i say before that set you off? that Indian exercise thing with our F-15 squadron WAS true, the Indians were flying brand new Su-30 multi-role fighters, while the Americans had aging F-15C Eagles.

I gotta say, the F-22 would only maintain its airsupremacy so long as its stealth remains in full effect. The radar jamming is nice and all but so long as the Su-30 can detect the raptor it goes to hell in a big way.
The Su-30 can shoot it’s weapons with total stealth at a distance well in advance of the AIM-120, America’s longest ranging missile.

probably the most intelligent thing i’ve heard all week! in America’s quest for a stealthy hard-to-see fighter, we’ve taken away from dogfighting, load-carrying, etc. attributes, creating an aircraft that, except for stealth, systems, TV, etc., is inferior to the Su-37 and other super-fighters. but no one’s bought the Su-37 yet… we need an AIM-54 Phoenix replacement, a missile with a range exceeding 150 miles. that way we’ll stay ahead of the curve. and it would be a perfect reason to resurrect the F-14; aside from all the other reasons I’ve listed.

lol, idk, the Su-37 has TV and canards and is pretty damn maneuverable; i think the Flanker and the Raptor would be quite evenly matched, all depends on pilots, who gets the first best shot off, who makes the least mistakes, etc.

the first thing about opening one’s mouth is to make sure that you don’t crap in it.
Cope india 05 and 06 saw NO su30mki engagements - the indian air force banned this.
The only su30s used were the older mks - no thrust vectoring, no canards and older avionics - apparently they were forbidden from switching on their radars!!!
the usaf came to grief from both them and the MiG21 Bisons: recently upgraded mig21s.
since cope india, many third world air forces ready to mothball their mig21s have apparently approached india not only to train their pilots but to learn as to how they could defeat the US in air combat using these 50 year old aircraft.
The MKIs phase 3 apparently did not use their radars in the next - and more important - exercise INDRADHANUSH against the eurofighter Typhoon in the U.K.
Remember, the Russian - Indian fifth gen aircraft will enter service in a few years - based on a MINIMAL requirement to defeat the F-22 and F–35 in ALL scenarios.
IT IS NOT THE AIRCRAFT THAT DECIDES THE OUTCOME OF AIR COMBAT BUT THE PILOT INSIDE IT.
AND, UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU GUYS YOUR PILOTS LEAVE A LOT TO DESIRE

“[our] pilots leave a lot to be desired”? what? with TOPGUN, Red Flag, and all those other exercises the US and other nations participate in, we LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED? why do you think China got so damn scared after Desert Storm? because they saw American and British tanks ripping through Iraqi armour columns, and they saw COALITION AIRCRAFT OWNING THE SKIES!!! most of the Iraqi aircraft fled, and some were flying MiG-29 Fulcrums. now China has the Z-10, the J-10, the Type-98 tank, and a shitload of other high-tech toys…

COPE India saw younger generation Su-30 Flankers take on older F-15 Eagles, and besides, the MiG-21 is smaller, harder to see, more maneuverable, and, in upgraded variants (like the Israeli MiG-21 Lancer produced for the Romanians), is the equal of any Cold-War era fighter still fielded today; why do you think the US is making the F/A-22 Raptor, the French have the Rafale, Sweden has the Gripen, and the rest of Europe is gunning for the Ef-2000? because everybody recognizes that current front line F-15, Tornado, Viggen, etc. aircraft are TOO OLD! the entire USAF just recently grounded most of their F-15’s, and Japan and Israel followed suit, as did South Korea, because the planes are old and fatigued; eventually, newer F-15Es were allowed to fly, but the point is that these fighters are too old, and need to be replaced

not to mention the fact that Su-27 Flanker series aircraft are helluvalot more maneuverable than F-15C’s.

What does one make a fighter for?
In a combat situation there is no doubt that the Raptor could shoot down the others
before they even saw it. Supercruise without afterburners defeates Russian IRTS.
No Heat No tracking or missle lock. The non-intrusive radar lock is the greatest
advance in air combat in 50 years. You can acheive radar lock without alerting the
enemy. Simply stated if any of you DO your research you’ll find that the other vehicles
are monkeys with hammers when compared. The US kill ratio at a standing 6 to 1 will only
increase.

lol you compare F-22 with these planes.I don’t think any of this russian junk or the EF2000 can compare with it.The only thing which the both planes are close is the manouverability of the SU and the Raptor.In every other aspect the russian junk can’t even get close to the Raptor.Guys when you will understand that russians are at least 10 years behind americans.When the americans researched the TV on their F-18 HARV,F-16 MATV,X-31 and did these manouvers like the SU-30 the russians were putting in their air force the SU-27 with its “incredible” manouver “the cobra”.I’m sorry but that’s the truth and you just have to DEAL WITH IT !

everybody here needs to remember its all about experience.experience will decide the winner in battles every country can simulate but no simulation compares with experience.the f22 will simply win because it was created by a country that has the most experience on the battlefield and knows what is needed.

The eurofighter and su-37 are remarkable planes but the f-22 is simply on a different playing field.

If these airplanes went against a rapter it would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

With its supercruise faster, its situational awarness greater, and its stealth features, which makes it resemble a bumble bee on the radar screen why would the su-37 maneuverabilty be the turning point for those of yall who think that russian plane is better?

Which by the way american pilots have proven time and time again, like in Korea and Vietnam, that simply having maneuverabilty doesn’t insure victory.

Right now I also want to make a few more points that have been brought up early in the blogs

The first one about WWII, America was the sole reason why we won it, the allies helped and russia played there part, but Russia only had to fight on one front America fought threw Africa, Italy, France, and into Germany which I guess this is pretty obvious. No one has mentioned the fact that we fought on the other side of the planet too, we had to take back half of the pacific from Japan which at the time had the biggest navy in history also the harshist fighters too. We ended the war
by dropping “the bomb” over Japan twice which no other country had making us the most powerful country in history, no other country played a biggest role than the United States. Beforehand Britain was barely holding off Hitler, Russia was a dirt poor country that if not for there brutal winter could have never turn the tied against Hitler by themselves.

The second one is about China somebody brought up that in 20 years it will be impossible for us to fight them in a conventional war. China is an economical nightmare, right now they have the best economy but it wont last they will crash, maybe harder than the Soviets did which ended the cold war. Our country spends more money on our military than the next 30 countries combined which includes China. There a country full of hard headed idiots who can take a country seriously when it has the greatest pollution and biggest human rights issues.

Last but not least Russia has also been good at making propaganda weapons which is exactly what the su-37 and su-47 are. There nothing more than an f-15 with more missles and more manueverabilty. The f-22 is ment to dominate these kind of conventional aircraft and it will

“[our] pilots leave a lot to be desired”? what? with TOPGUN, Red Flag, and all those other exercises the US and other nations participate in, we LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED? why do you think China got so damn scared after Desert Storm? because they saw American and British tanks ripping through Iraqi armour columns, and they saw COALITION AIRCRAFT OWNING THE SKIES!!! most of the Iraqi aircraft fled, and some were flying MiG-29 Fulcrums. now China has the Z-10, the J-10, the Type-98 tank, and a shitload of other high-tech toys…

In desert storm 2, US was fighting against a country which was crippled by more than 10 years of economic sanctions where they were denied weapons and spare parts for their tanks and planes. Do you think it was a level-playing field?

Tyler, first, i guess
you make a lot of good, correct points, many of them my own as well, but the Su-37 and -47 aren’t just propaganda toys; they’re potent strike fighters that, though they may not equal the F/A-22, are easily more capable than any F-15 in the world today. a veteran Israeli F-15E crew would be hard-pressed to beat a well-flown Russian Super Flanker in every multi-role spectrum. that said, the Raptor dominates… as to China, you are, in my well-founded, expert-backed opinion, incorrect. we may spend more than any other nation on “defense”, but guess where most of that dough ends up… i’ll give you three guesses, but you’ll only need one - IRAQ! and, to a way smaller extent, Afghanistan. so relatively little is going into R&D and the modernization of other forces not associated with Iraq that could come into play in a possible war with china. china, meanwhile, continues to increase its defense spending, while the democrats (in rhetoric) and the republicans (in tax-cuts) continue to slash defense spending in the US. China has always been a numerically superior force, and now they are modernizing fast. a lot of this game of catch-up comes from export Russian hardware and STOLEN AMERICAN MILITARY “SECRETS (not really vital to national security, but still stuff way more advanced than China would normally see)”! numbers can be beaten by technology and training, but numbers and technology together are about unstoppable. China is now equalizing the fighting power of the US, and they also already outnumber us; am i the only one here that sees something wrong with this picture? a couple of examples: multiple arms dealers have been arrested for supplying restricted non-exportable American hardware to Chinese intelligence authorities; the hardware included UH-60 Blackhawk engines, which the US has declared non-exportable. the Pentagon has confirmed that they know that chinese-paid agents are also trying to obtain F-14 Tomcat parts, AIM-120 AMRAAM’s, the AGM-165 (i think), an Air Force stealth cruise missile, and other things. Chinese ships have been seen coming out of dry dock with AEGIS copies, AEGIS of course being a complex air-defense coordination system developed during the cold war and still in use today. and one look at chinese military hardware is quite sobering; the Z-10 attack helicopter, said to be the equal of the Augusta A-129 Mangusta and South Africa’s Rooivalk, is nearing deployment, the J-10 (a Chinese Eurofighter, basically) is in squadron service, a range of Type-96 and Type-98 tanks, comparable to Russian T-80s, are in production, and the chinese have a number of Su-27 fighters, Russian submarines, and russian surface ships.

let’s call it the united states of Hollywood!
Topgun!!
Redflag!
fly red on red! the enemy is stupid, armed with inferior training and machines!!
love this rhetoric!
need more of this
The average US student is 2 - 3 years BEHIND their Asian counterpart and 3 yrs behind by year 22.
The average USAF pilot is similarly so and why not? Do “the best of the best sir” - oops Hollywood’s Men in Black - is not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.
The smartest American produce enters the private sector, as MDs, Engineers and Lawyers.
The left behinds join the armed forces, government service, Sherrif’s dept etc.
Very few boys joining the forces do so because of Family value and proud tradition.
Look at the instances of “friendly fire” “accidents” involving US forces! Unmatched in the world!!!
In a country where education till 18 is FREE, college graduation EASY and the possibility to improve one’s strature almost an undeniable RIGHT, people who FAIL are called “LOOSERS”!!!
Right??
So, who joins the Forces??
Unemployed Blacks, Hispanics, poor whites and foreigners trying to obtain US citizenship!
How smart are they?
And we depend on them for our safety!!!!
DREAM ON

The U.S. military engineers are some of the smartest people in the world and not all of them come from the U.S. The military acadmies for the army, airforce, and navy are some of the hardest institutions to get into in America. On level with the Ivy league schools.

In fact when I was in high school every year the top graduate went to a military school and these people had perfect SAT scores and a near perfect average I knew cause I was friends with these kids.

The lower end of society might be the ones inlisting in the army as privates but there whole objective is to follower orders by men and women who have put the time and effort into an education.

To say that our military is stupid shows alot of ignorants on your part

Dude I can go on and on and on and on about what the U.S. has planned for the next 20 years for the military but that would take up nearly all the blog space on this website.

With what our military is creating like boeing 747’s with tactical lasers, the future force land warrior which in theory would be able to turn a soldier invisiable, brand new ship designs for the next decade, a bomber that can fly faster than mach 6 that will be ready for testing by 2012 we are leaving every other country in the dust.

Let’s assume for the moment that there are three main types of engagments:

1. Tech. Here the Raptor wins by stealth and jamming. The theory is that the raptor will almost never be detected. The Raptor may or may not have better radar (please confirm) but this comes in later. However, the Su-30mki’s IRTS and EOS features can give it the advantage by providing a completely stealthy approach and attack.

2. BVR. Beyond visual range. This assumes all parties have ben detected by eachother. What really counts here is Missiles and Guidance. As far as missiles go, Russia has it pretty good. Ever since the F-14 was retired the longest ranged air-to-air missile has been the Russian Ash missile. I’m not sure whether the Ash is employed on the Su-30mki but I know the Alamo is. The Alamo has a much better range than the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
Once again, the IRST and EOS possessed by the Su-30mki gives it a stealthy launch so that helps too.

3. Dogfight. This is where it gets mucky. All craft are exceptional dogfighters, with arnament and delivery being the only applicable factors.
The R-73 Archer is the Russian Airforces main close-air-missile and is the dogfighting weapon of choice for the Su-30mki. It can be fired at extremely rough conditions (Off the boresight by almost 90*) and is very accurate (latet reports confirm more so than the AIM-9L and maybe X).
The AIM-9X Sidewinder is the American contender with off boresight firing and improved accuracy. However both these factors are rumoured to be not as profound as the R-73.
The Eurofighter will most likely use the AIM-9X or the IRIS missile which I don’t know a great deal about.

All craft are extremely well made beasts. I refuse to think one is better, for as said above it is how they are flown. A badly flown F-22 could be shot down by an ace MiG-21. The planes themselves must therefore be scrutinised surgically. If the F-22 is as stealthy as the Americans say, then it will most likely win the day. However, with a good set up the Su-30mki (or prototype -37) does have the advantage in range and delivery.
While I believe the F-22 is a fantastic plane I do believe it is vulnerable. Any countermeasure that may be produced in the near future will leave this mega-expensive plane as usefull as the F-15. For without its’ stealth that is all the F-22 really is.

One last note (soz guys), the Su-30 and EF-2000 are far cheaper than the F-22 which could provide a decisive advantage.
I’ll shut up now.

anoop, while some of what you say has factual backing, your whole argument is obviously biased against the US armed forces; why, i cannot say. according to Thomas L. Friedman’s THE WORLD IS FLAT, while Aisans and Eastern Europeans may be ahead in brainpower on average, the US continues to triumph in innovation; all the Chinese, Indians, and Polish have been able to do is copy and beat us in the workplace, but they have not beaten out American ingenuity yet, though at this rate it shouldn’t take much longer. and i denounce your arrogance and ignorance in regard to the make-up of the armed forces. you think it’s only minorities in the military? where are these facts comin’ from, Chinese People’s Talk Radio?

as to tyler, looks like we have an argument from the total other end of the spectrum. what exactly can the YAB-1 COIL Airborne Laser accomplish? it’s still in testing, and in a major conventional war it’s useless unless you want to use it to snipe other planes, something i’m not even sure is possible. it was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles. exactly what do ballistic missiles do in a conventional war? the Objective Force Warrior again is still barely past development, the DD-21 concept destroyers again aren’t even built yet, and what Mach 6 bomber? the Aurora? that’s recon, mister, and we’re not even sure that even exists. and besides, how much do you think all this costs? the navy never meets its quota of aircraft bought per year, due to costs, how do you think they can afford more than a couple of DD-21’s? our illustrious presidents keep slashing taxes and increasing spending, and right now most of that spending goes to Iraq. and have you read the whole articles you’ve listed? everything displayed is either experimental, in development, or isn’t even going to be possible for the next decade. if you look at our military NOW and in the next coupla years, we’re screwed. the navy just killed aviation for the next 20 years with the Super Hornet, which is inferior in all respects to the F-14D Super Tomcat 21, the other proposed Tomcat replacement with increased strike capability and revamped everything-avionics, fly-by-wire, the works. the super hornet is even inferior in tests to the original Hornet! we look at the air force; ok, F/A-22, a coupla squadrons of those, AND aging F-15 and F-16 fighters that have only half the performance they had 2 decades ago, B-2s that can be detected on low-frequency WW2 type radar (the Brits proved this during Desert Storm), B-1Bs i’ll give the chair force kudos for, and B-52’s, venerable and slow, good missileers but that’s about it. and as i said earlier, you look at china, you see… well, i’m not gonna type it all again, just look at my last post. i appreciate your patriotism and your bashing of anoop, but in regards to china we’ll just have to agree to disagree. if and when Taiwan is overwhelmed in the next few decades, you’ll know why.

Alex Ryan, you make good points, and i dont think anyone can disagree; the F/A-22 without stealth would be a helluvalot more capable, because its design would be more functional, and we could put more stuff on or in it. stealth isn’t totally invincible, gentlemen, the Serbs or someone proved that in 1997 (they shot down a F-117 “Stealth Fighter”-oh please, the plane couldn’t dogfight with a 747)

Alright first of all I was talking about the blackswift program in development with the airforce not aurora. It’ll probably be manless but capable of flying mach 6 into combat threw the use of scramjets which have already proven to work.

Alright first of all I was talking about the blackswift program in development with the airforce not aurora. It’ll probably be manless but capable of flying mach 6 into combat threw the use of scramjets which have already proven to work.

Of course the f-18 super hornet isn’t anything compared to the f-14 but we really don’t need the f-14 in this day and time of warfighting. If we were to fight a technological advanced culture like ours in the future the f-14 wouldn’t have much of an advantage anyway. Thats why we’re developing the f-35, for naval fleet defence, which proves that we’re not getting behind in naval air combat.

Besides right now our navy is exponentialy bigger than any other navy in the world. We have 2 aircraft carriers in place of everyother aircraft carrier in the world.

Another point is the fact that our military is trying to adapt to a fast past kind of war, which is against terrorism. If China were to become a viable threat in the future our country would change tactics and “out muscle” them if need be. Although first off we would probably never go to war with China because it might lead to a nuclear war which in that case nobody wins. China’s once shown aggression towards Taiwon we ended up sailing one of our many aircraft carriers fleets down there and guess what China backed off.

Theres no way that China will become so powerful that they would do something to piss of the U.S. and not think twice about it. They understand that its to much of an economical burden to compete with us militarly just look what happened to the Soviet Union.

I know the F-22 is more advanced on paper, but seriously all of the updates seem to be ways of pilling in technology the Raptor really doesn’t need. I think it’s a great plane but considering the Su-30MKI is seriously cheaper and in some ways quite superior, the only way the Raptor will be successful is if it’s stealth and/or jamming holds up. Both of these are measures, just waiting for countermeasures.

I think in all this what the nations of the world need is a compromise:
The Raptor is expensive, the Su-30 is a bit rough avionics wise so a compromise is in order. Let’s say a craft which has a relatively advanced radar, data-link, weapon systems and good navigation. Easy to use, that kinda thing.

Instead of filling these planes full so full technology that they become (effectively) unavailable for export. Australia really wants an air supremacy fighter but we cant buy the Raptor. A simplified Raptor or the Su-30MKI (which we cant purchase for political reasons:() would be the best thing.

Tell you what, give me a F-14!
I do think the F-22 is a great plane, but besides Stealth the plane lacks any effective improvement. I know it has better Situation Awareness and this and that but the important things have been forgotten. Missiles? Far too short-ranged!

never heard of Blackswift, i’ll look it up, but i can guarantee you it hasn’t left the drawing board… of course we need the Tomcat, Tyler, just look at how it filled the multi-role job! as an updated Super Tomcat 21, the F-14D can carry the same ordnance variety, twice the payload, range, speed, survivability, and capability as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, currently the navy’s solution to naval aviation. the F-14 makes a great strike fighter, something we would definitely need in any future conflicts. and as to carriers, who cares about numbers, the Persian Gulf and China seas are all considered “Brownwater”, and not exactly perfect for blue water air ops, to say the least. naval combat right now depends on silence (subs), detection, and firepower. and the Chinese have a large, increasingly modernized navy, bulked up by multiple Russian vessels and subs that are perfectly suited to the shallow waters off China. and that skirmish you mentioned occurred years ago, back when china was ONLY numerically superior; now, it’s different, as i’ve explained before. and the reason the USSR fell was because they were communist as an economy. China has survived because they’re capitalist, and while in economical terms China would suffer greatly if they attack us, you have to look at it from an Asian point of view. Taiwan is technically, according to China, the 23rd Province or Chinese Taipei. in their eyes, they have every right and responsibility to invade. look at the Spratleys, nice contested oil-rich islands miles off China’s coast, in easy range of naval and air strikes. to the typical Asian, face means a lot.

Thanks, but I like being proved wrong. I guess I’m in a godd position here in Australia. Indonesia is our biggest threat but we would rely on America for support. Remove this and we’re smoke.
I just worry about us buying the F-35. It’s cheaper than the F-22 but it still costs a nation like ours bucket loads. It’s a great plane but it lacks the things a large and comparitively poor nation such as ours needs. Range and…cheapness.
I really wish we would buy Su-30mki’s from India or at least a couple of Su-35’s from Russia. They have an almost perfect blend for us but politics killed that one.
The F-35 would be great for a close battlefield full of sams and threats and with AWACS support. Thats what it’s built for. But Australia (and Spain?) really needs a new F/A-18 with more range, maybe stealth and better missiles. The Superhornet seems to have been build upon a thousand lies. The only thing left is the Raptor (yeah we could field around…five? ten?) or the Su-30 (which we cant buy). Gah! someone give us an alternative (which we wont listen to…like Dassault)

ah, poor austrailia. although in reality, you guys dont have much to worry about; would Indonesia ever attack you? i doubt it, and all they could field anyway would be F-16’s and a coupla Russian fighters; your F/A-18’s and (soon-to-be) F-35’s would make short work of them. although in reality the F-35 isn’t that great, it’s 80% overweight, a MiG-21 with a veteran expert pilot could take one on, assuming they could find it. the F/A-18 is a great airframe, a perfect blend of two concepts, but it’s as good as it’s gonna get; you cant improve upon it anymore, despite a valiant attempt by the Sewer Bug. now a stealth-enhanced, updated Super Tomcat 21, THAT is the perfect aircraft, at least for the USN; Australia might like it, idk, but dont buy the rafale, it’s overrated. neway, yeah, Su-30MKI’s would be great…

continuing my rant against the F-35, the plane, in short, is an inferior F/A-22, without the supercruise, TV, and systems. the plane is 80% overweight, and weight-loss measures will surely cost the plane in performance greatly. dont get me wrong, i like the “little-stealth” a lot, STOVL is a great concept, but i dont know why everyone gets so happy over the Lightning II. the plane doesn’t deserve it. there’s a reason the Air Force is buying 2000 F-35’s, and only 300 F/A-22’s. and naval aviation, as said above, is screwed for the next 20 years because of the replacement of the f-14 and the refusal to accept the F-14D Super Tomcat 21 replacement, in favor of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II.

I agree completely! The F-35 was proposed to us as a twin-engined, all-purpose, high-tech fighter/attacker. Instead we got a single-engined piece of junk! Like I said, great for a close battlefield like say, the Gulf War or something but not really a homelad defese fighter.
I also agree that the Rafale wouldn’t have been suited for Australia (range again!) but what worries me is that the Australian military and indeed many of the world’s militaries are being squashed below arrogant political groups and leaders. Our minister for defense could’t give two Precision Guided F**ks about checking the Rafale out but I reckon our military advisors and personel would have at least had a look

Oh and one thing. I have now found a conclusive argument for the Su-27 family. The Su-34 “Platypus” is equipped with a toilet. Does the F-22? I rest my case!

Oh and from what I’ve heard (garbelled and patriotic) the F-22’s stealth is much better than the F-117’s. Still, from what I read it wasn’t a radar unit which detected and engaged the Nighthawk over bosnia, but careful placement and visual scanning performed by clever Serbian SAM units.

Oh and does anyone know about the effectiveness of IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) or Russian EOS (Electro-Optical Sighting)against the F-22? I guess supercruise and angled vector plates on the raptor might limit the first one but you never know… I saw an image showing the effective range of EOS/IRST being greater than an AIM-120…could be the tech advantage that we dont want!

Just looking back, I think we should remember we aren’t including pilot skill as a factor. We are judging the planes. We actually don’t know how good an airforce really is until they are put to combat. This is why American pilots flew the Su-30mki’s against their own F-15C’s in the evaluation.

the Su-34 has a toilet? lol! well, it is a heavy strike plane… you mean an actual like lavatory? because pilots already have relief tubes… as to IRST, doesn’t matter if afterburning or not, your engine still emits a lot of heat, especially in cold weather and/or altitude. but using burner would definitely increase the range at which you could be detected. i dont know much about EOS, but I do know that the TCS on the F-14 worked wonders, allowed for totally optical-guided no radar AIM-54 Phoenix launches at over 60 miles against large fighters, but that was not electrically aided… and true, the F/A-22 is like fourth generation stealth, as compared to the F-117, which is like Generation 2.5. and true, the F-117 over Serbia wasn’t really detected on radar, but the Brits, using low-frequency WW2 style radars, detected the Nighthawks inbound on strikes during the First Gulf war, plus the plane can only fly at night, in clear weather, because water and condensation degrades stealth… and i rest MY case lol!

excerpt: Editors Note: Every airplane that goes into service is accompanied by controversy. This is especially true of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Our two experts argue that the Super Hornet is not necessarily the airplane the Navy needs for the future, and their backgrounds lend weight to their arguments. Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist U.S. Navy (Ret.) spent 33 years as a fighter jet pilot and wing commander and was operations commander for all Pacific Fleet fighters. Bob Kress is an aeronautical engineer and, during his long career at Grumman, he was directly involved in the development of the F-14 Tomcat. Their analysis makes an interesting statement when placed against the background of the war on terrorism…

Very good read “F-14Ds Rock!…”, I knew the F/A-18E/F wasn’t the best thing in the world but reading some of that sent shivers through my spine! Below 1,000ft (god I hate Imperial) the Super Hornet is unable to achiece supersonic performance. Makes the F-4 Phantom look a bit too good.
Which is great when you need to dissengage from a knife-fight with an Su-30 because you lack the fuel to be effective!! So oh yeah…you try and run. No cowardice, just basic numbers. “Oh sorry,” says God, “I’m afraid we can’t put you above Mach. HAve fun outrunning the flanker. God bless”

*cry*

My god do we really need the F-14 back. I think it’s unfair when people say Americans ALWAYS make bad mistakes because the existance of the F-14, Red Flag and numerous other really intelligent ideas refutes this claim. Recently a trend is becoming more and more noticeable in our world. Not just concerning military aviation but all kinds of things on a global scale. Political minds are making decisions which need specialist minds. Brendan Nelson, Australia’s last Defense minister (so glad he’s gone, I abused him out of office from my living room) chose to buy the F-35 without consulting the men who fly the planes or the men who command them. I think it’s a great sickness in our world today and the F-14 .vs. Superhornet debate is a great symptom of this.

Sorry for going off-track and writing an essay here.
Go on, shoot me. It has to be done.

at last, someone who sees the light! lol… too true about politics interfering with the military, and it looks like Australia is back on the road to recovery, but our Pentagon is now accusing the air force of wasting its time producing expensive F/A-22s… WTF?! we NEED F/A-22’s, more than ever now, especially since Canada is now defending our airspace because all our F-15’s are grounded! the F-15 and F-16 need good replacements, and the F/A-22 is just the thing! cost should not be an issue when it comes to defending the American (or Australian) people!

What!! Oh god! The fact that Russia is or isn’t an issue is irrelevant! On principle!!!

Oh and yeah, I reckon the F-22 is wonderful, just think it could have been made cheaper, more effective and more viable for countries like Australia. And PLEASE make better missiles.
Being the ultra-plane geek I am (*sigh*) I tried to make the best combat fighter in my head. Take a Tomcat (love…) and give it better avionics, newer sattelite guided AAMs (for active bvr capability over ANY range) and some cool design features (stealth - basic, fly-by-wire, canards and thrust vectoring) and you have the perfect weapon. No slouch in a dogfight, plenty of really good weapons and not all that expensive - certainly less than the raptor.

didja hear about Time Magazine making Putn the Person of the Year? my god…

yeah, better missiles are a must, for now i vote we buy some russian AA-12’s (jk), but we do need something new, the AMRAAM is great as a secondary medium range missile, weren’t they making an ALRAAM (Advanced-Long-Range-…) along with the ASRAAM? great points on the F-14, anyway, it’s exactly what all the experts recommend…

and i tried to send you an E-mail, couldn’t connect, i’ll try to send you one in a week (i’ll be outa contact with my comp for a while

Well when you get back, I read something on Wikipedia about an improved version of the AIM-120 called the “D”. S’pose to have 40% more range which is good but still not the best. I guess the biggest hassle is fitting missiles into the Raptor’s launch bay. USAF must have asked itself whether six AMRAAMS is better than two or four Phoenix missiles.

One other thing concerning the characteristics of missiles. I don’t think there are any medium range missiles which are fully active. I know for one thing that the AMRAAM needs updates for the first section of flight. What if you could remove the need for that? Like a missile with the Phoenix’s range or better and completely independant of the launch craft from launch. How about Sattelite cued missiles?

SENARIO: launch plane locks up target with radar, gets coordinates, fires, sattelite guides the missile almost until launch, kinda like a JDAM. Added bonus is it is completely stealthy!

Greg, while you may be right that air combat is moving towards lighter, smaller, more agile STOVL aircraft, the F-135 is not the answer. as explained above, the F-35 has multiple deficiencies.

and i’ve heard of the “D” AMRAAM, but i dont know much about it. true, a satellite-guided missile would be awesome, but the receiver would be too big, and they’d have to redesign the AMRAAM. an AIM-54D would’ve been nice… and JDAM is AWESOME!

and i’ll e-mail you in a week, when i get access to my E-mail again, for some odd reason i cant access it here…

Tyler - a good working class name - git!!!
it is u who is stupid - i make more in a month than your family makes in a year, so who’s stupid???
get used to this, it isn’t the plane or the radar that wins a combat situation, it’s the PILOT dumbo!

oh, greg, i forgot, you are an idiot, where have you been since vietnam, dogfighting is still necessary, why do you think fighters still have cannon onboard?! ACM is still a vital part of air combat, we cant always fight at BVR. you must be one of those stupid critics trying to get guns off fighters…

and Major reza is correct in that the Su-37 is better in the multi-role arena; but a Raptor would still kill it

and anoop, i dont think tyler ever actually said the machine is more important than the pilot… we all agree, i think, that the skill of the pilot will almost always (i cant say always, because “beginners’ luck” can play a part, or the pilot could just be having an off day) determine the outcome of a fair fight (same altitude, short range, guns and IR only, etc.). and the aircraft and the systems can win fights, as seen in multiple conflicts throughout history. Desert Strom 1991 is the best example; American M1A1 Abrams tanks, using advanced sensor suites, could see the Iraqi T-72’s in the dark, through the iraqi smokescreens, which actually blinded the T-72’s themselves. plus, we could get first-round hits way beyond the range of the iraqis. tell me technology did not play a role there…

same thing in the air, i think we can all agree there is a fuzzy line where pilot skill doesn’t matter anymore (i.e. P-51D against F/A-18C, although give the pony a sidewinder and things might change a bit…)

and it’s generally not considered polite to flaunt one’s paycheck… nor does it make one a better person…

It seems to me like this whole argument has become a “Cannon” waving competition.

Personally I don’t know f**k all about aeroplanes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan but coming from New Zealand where most of our airforce got grounded after our old skyhawks started dropping out of the sky after 328 years of service means that my views are somewhat different. I believe that our major stategy would be to let the American ariforce come in with their fancy fighters, blow up our buildings, milk factories and mountains. We would then hold a large parade with American flags being waved, large photos of George Bush being held aloft and celebrated and free cheese wheels and milk being handed out to all and sundry.

Our antiquated Hercules (normally used to transport supplies to Antartica where we are building a top secret nuclear facility) would then fly overhead and rain down sheep upon the un suspecting American forces. Each sheep would have fins attached and would in fact be a precision guided “Smart Sheep Bomb” similar to those seen in such genius games as Worms 3D. The sheep would land on the top of the head of each American below and put an end to the invasion forthwith.

We would then go back to our normal lives of training cows to walk to the milkshed, surfing, snowboarding and generally forgetting about arrogant agressors that threaten the very existence of us all.

I think you all bring up very good points. Most of you are very good at recycling information that you have read on other web pages and using that to wave your “Cannon” more vigorously. “Its mine and I’ll clean it as fast as I like!” springs to mind.

Some of you are clearly retards that can’t be reasoned with.

Anoop, obviously you are begruntled living in the USA surrounded by those who don’t value your genius for maths and I imagine a fastidiousness for cleanliness.
Have you learnt nothing from your time browbeating your poor (Apparently in all manners of the word) american hosts? Its not their fault. They are brought up with an American flag in their hand and if they don’t wave it they fall apart. Reasoning with them will do nothing. I thought one who clearly emphasizes her own superior intelligence and earning capability would have more fruitful things to do then argue with those who are doing the Aviation equivalent of comparing a fight between Batman and Superman.

Vince was clearly a graduate of the flag waving school. He was clearly able to wave his flag the hardest and I bet hes really good at video games now. He clearly has an insight into world politics and foreign policy and I’m sure that he is right in saying that when the Americans fly into Iran and drop more bombs, the Iranians won’t see the F-22 on their radar screen. Hes right. The Iranian will be watching CNN in his bunker which is better than radar in terms of advanced (ahead of time) war reporting.

Anywho, with all that said I think most of the arguments are stupid. The F-22 is stealthy to other aeroplanes, but maybe not ground radar, and at the end of the day most success comes from working using all of the equipment that you have. After war is announced and the Pilots of the F-22 begin attacking the impoverished, hungry, sanctioned nation that sits upon a sea of oil reserves they probably will get the first shot in. Probbaly the next fifty as well. Chances are though that news would probably spread fairly quickly and after that stealth really sn’t much of an issue.

The intelligent pilot would sit back and wait until the F-22 pilot had fired the two little missiles that he can carry and then nail him with a precision guided smart sheep missile. Job done.

I think you should all stop arguing over aeroplanes that none of you will ever fly in and go back to warcraft or cleaning bedpans or waving your flag.

I especially like the part about the band upgrading our old planes. Leave you all quivering in your boots?????

When it comes to superior pilots…noone and I repeat noone is better than the NZ airforce pilots. The things they have to do midflight to keep those machines in the air is astounding. Pilots are issued with wrenches, pliers and the occassional screwdriver for mid air repairs.

This thread is full of silly nationalism coming from all quarters. “Cowboys” you say?
Do you really want to talk about real “kill” ratios? “Professionalism”?

FACT: RAF fighters did not shoot down a single hostile plane since World War II! FACT: The RAF has shot down some of their own planes since then, so their “kill” ratio is not too good!!!.

In 1982 alone, a RAF Jaguar was shot down by an RAF Phantom during a NATO exercise, and the following month a British Gazelle helicopter was shot down by HMS CARDIFF in the Falklands. The British army has had MANY blue-on blues since then, including the recent war in Iraq.

Potential buyers of the Harrier knew the key to British navy success in the Falklands was the AIM-9L sidewinder missile — Argentine pilots said they were deathly afraid of the wide-scan AIM-9L because it was so reliable — it was almost impossible to miss the target.

That is exactly why the British had problems selling the Harrier. After the Falklands, the British expected export sales to skyrocket … and of course that never happened.

PAVE TACK, that is to be roughly categorised as Bullshit. No kills since the WW2? Do me a favour, what about the Falklands? Harriers set up a brilliant air-supremacy web over Port Stanley and shot down all kinds of shit. Israeli made Daggers and Neshers, Pucharas and I think a few attack planes and choppers.
Besides, an airforce only has one mission that requires hostile aircraft to be shot down every time and that’s a fighter sweep, the fact that the hostile forces cannot mobilise properly is victory enough.
As for friendly fire, I’ve got no real opinion. Ideally it should never happen but it seems to be evident in all of the major airforces.

Also, no one really knows how an airforce will cope with a real war (like WW2) and not a strategic deployment. I’m sure if you gave Britain another Adolf Hitler to defeat, the world would be impressed by their skill.

Oha and Sheep is the Answer, you raise a good point. In a flat battle America and perhaps allies is generally superior if only by technology and numbers. But in a Vietnam like situation? New approaches I think:)

All aerial victories in the Falklands were credited to Sea Harriers. No Argentine planes were shot down by the RAF’s Harriers.

Let’s not forget that British navy pilots received dogfight training from U.S. Marine Corps pilots in the exchange program. The Marines pioneered ACM techniques with the jump jet and flew the AV-8 for nearly ten years before the Sea Harrier was operational.

The RAF had no interest in using the Harrier as a fighter/interceptor until the Falklands war. Unlike American AV-8 units, the RAF Harrier pilots then had no ACM training program vs. fast jets and the RAF Harriers were not even wired to carry sidewinder missiles until a few weeks before the Falklands war.

I enjoy watching all three aircraft and they are all wonderful achievements if you ask me. It is a shame though that we have to become so confrontational when comparing them, but then again I suppose the whole topic of comparison is a penis measuring contest.

As far as the joint wargames I don’t really know much about them. Do you think there is any sandbagging going on in them (possibly to gain a leverage argument towards one’s own country to gain funds for manufacturing more advanced aircraft)? I would never entirely trust a countries personal reports of their aircrafts performance and capabilities as deception has always been a part of that game and they could well stack the books either way.

Regarding pilots, I think there are so many variables involved that its hard to declare the best pilots based solely by nation. I don’t personally know any military pilots and my entire picture of them is based on what I may have seen on documentaries and read about. I was always impressed with the RAF, they seemed to have a sort of dogged professionalism about them that felt unrivaled. The Israeli pilots I always saw as extremely skilled, fearless and the sort of pilots that you knew would do the job you sent them to do. Russian pilots strike me as cunning and calculating and someone you don’t dare make a mistake against. American pilots I see as skilled and dedicated with an edge of unpredictability mixed in and an arrogance that is fitting for a combat pilot to possess.

Nothing bad to say about anyone. You can only be just better than your best competition and if your competition sucks then all you can claim is “I don’t suck as bad as them”. When it comes to life and death though you can say “I am alive and they are not”.

I think Americans are the best when it comes to business and making money,they could sell Gandhi a hair dryer and make him believe that India won its indipendance because he used his hair dryer,every day. I’ve worked for Boeing and GM where a simple wrench costs $120.00 and which a similar wrench anyone can buy from Sears for $11.00. When an Industrial death occurs in the USA or Europe,$millions are dished out as compensation, as opposed to in the BRIC nations,Brazil,Russia,India and China, you will be lucky if you got a dime.
My point is that the west or the so called developed world has placed a higher $$$ figure on human life than the rest, so does that mean that they make a better Fighter or a car? I think the approach is different,The American approach begins with factoring in the human aspect of safety and cost and than the technical superiority is incorporated in to the design and than finaly add to that the corruption value added charges.The Russian approach is a much simpler and objective oriented approach,you make a machine that gets the job done at 33% of the cost of your enemies machine and have a 3 to 1 ratio advantage,and then add a certain amount of human safety and add a lot of corruption value added charges(usually in the form of Vodka) and you have a product.

Would i buy a Cadilac CTS, a Lada with turbo charger, or just a base Lada or the European BMW ? Me, i drive a Chrysler minivan.

But going back to the topic, the Russian Sukhoi’s 3 to 1 advantage makes a lot of sense to me.
But you know the Sheep might just win the day.

America has all the advantages but rarely plays them. American’s avionics have the capablility to make a great fighter (think about the dogfight modes - auto aquisition, ect) and put enough people to work on it they can make a great airframe. Their government pours millions into arms companies so producing better weapons wouldnt be a challenge. So what are you guys waiting for? We’ve seen it done before, get your brains onto it and make us a great fighter. I bet you anything you can make a plane that is cheaper without damaging performance.

How’s this for a configuration:

F-14 frame with canards and thrust vectoring.

Front seat holds pilot with simplified cockpit (one display) to keep his head out of the cockpit.
Rear seat holds the tech wiz with 3 or 4 screens. He controls all the technical stuff (navigations, sensors and other annoying jobs).

Weapons are stored on the numerous (10+) hardpoints with all pod equipment fully integrated internally into the frame.

The Northrup F-5 and F-20 certainly qualified with high performance vs. low cost and low maintenance. The F-5E is a good performer even by today’s standards, and was so popular that the company could not build enough to meet foreign export demands. As well the United States refused to sell the F-5 to certain governments.

The F-20 was an improved version of the F-5, with a single engine and other refinements. In the mid-1980s, USAF test pilots noted that the F-20 clearly outperformed the latest F-16 in pretty much every category, and was less expensive to operate than the F-16. But the Tigershark did not represent a next generation aircraft like the Raptor, and obviously it was necessary to attract enough orders to maintain a factory and parts pipeline.

The F-20 was just proposed too late to be a practical replacement for the already well-entenched F-16 as a NATO strike fighter.

geez, i leave for a week and look what happens! lol, hope everyone had a merry christmas (that is, if you celebrate it; it’s X-mas for me, i guess)…

PAVE TACK, those may be facts, but c’mon, are you trying to say the Royal Air Force is a blibbering incopetent? everyone has friendly-fire incidents, it’s called the fog of peace (some would say it’s more confusing than the fog of war, too many regulations), and there haven’t been many chances for the RAF to score A-A kills, even the USAF, USN, and USMC have only managed a couple in the past half-a-century! and RAF Harriers were strictly ground-attack birds because the Brits knew they also had Tornado fighters to handle air-to-air, whereas the RN had baby carriers that couldn’t do s***. that’s why Sea Harriers were practically VTOL fighters. i’d consider the RAf to be fairly capable, they did the Black Buck raids back at the Falklands, comparable to Operation El Dorado Canyon in scope and difficulty. but no, the Brits’ true strength is in their special forces, tanks, and subs. but you cant just go and call the RAF a piece of kipper, it makes no sense, you might as well call the North Korean Peoples’s Air Force the best because they haven’t shot their own planes down (probably didn’t even have the fuel or know-how to even take-off lol).

i liked Stephen’s assessment, and also how he pointed out that we may be going at each other’s throats a little too much; maybe, in light of the holiday season, we should tone it down. anoop’s fair game, though, lol jk…

and where’d we get off on the Tigershark? great plane, but huh? and how did the F-20 outperform the F-16 in “every aspect”? load-carrying and range would seem a bit lacking, as well as systems, wouldn’t ya think?

as always, Alex Ryan, we still need an F-14, a damn shame you aren’t working at the Pentagon right now, they need their heads screwed on straight ^_^

British Navy pilots did not share your opinion about the RAF. About ten years ago RAF fighters were defeated 25:0 during a training exercise vs. Sea Harriers.

And yes, the F-16 offered more load carrying options but the F-20 was more agile and more cost effective. I have nothing against the F-14. It was a cutting edge system … in the 1970s. Good as the Tomcat was, the U.S. Navy can get along fine without another very expensive, high-maintenance airplane.

Despite dire predictions of big losses in Vietnam, the subsonic A-6 served them well and for three times longer than planned. The Intruder was originally intended as a stopgap solution when the supersonic A-5 (another costly, high-maintenance aircraft) failed as a bomber and was converted into a photo plane. Despite its lower speed, the A-6 proved more survivable than expected while the RA-5C suffered the highest loss rate of any navy jet used in Vietnam.

first off, how did the Brits duke it out? wasw it a close-in knife fight? ‘cuz if it was, then of course the Sea Harriers would win, they were probably going against Tornadoes, which are way less maneuverable then an F-16; their primary mission is combat air patrol over the North Sea, which requires range and speed; you dont need dazzling aerobatics to defeat a Tu-95 Bear!

whoa, whoa, whoa, back up a bit. “the U.S. Navy can get along fine without another very expensive, high-maintenance airplane”? WTF?! are you saying the Super Hornet is better, mister? have you read ANY of the other above entries, specifically ones posted by me detailing EXACTLY WHY the Sewer Bug just shot down naval aviation for the next 20 years? we NEED a Tomcat! maybe not the F-14A, but at least an F-14D Super Tomcat 21! ever heard of China? how about a Su-27? if your answer to any of these questions is no, not only are you highly ignorant, you’ve probably never heard of the J-10! good grief, people i’ll restate it for i hope the last time:

“if you look at our military NOW and in the next coupla years, we’re screwed. the navy just killed aviation for the next 20 years with the Super Hornet, which is inferior in all respects to the F-14D Super Tomcat 21, the other proposed Tomcat replacement with increased strike capability and revamped everything-avionics, fly-by-wire, the works. the super hornet is even inferior in tests to the original Hornet!”

“of course we need the Tomcat, Tyler, just look at how it filled the multi-role job! as an updated Super Tomcat 21, the F-14D can carry the same ordnance variety, twice the payload, range, speed, survivability, and capability as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, currently the navy’s solution to naval aviation. the F-14 makes a great strike fighter, something we would definitely need in any future conflicts.”

you can argue with me, but keep in mind that my thought are backed by experts from the Navy, specifically test and fighter pilots. read this:

and why are we talking about the A-6 vs. A-5? i like both the Intruder and the “Viggy”, but it’s way non sequiter, especially since your point is wrong when it comes to the F-14, that’s all i can say, but whatever, i’m not gonna try to convince every Super Hornet bozo that crosses my path…

First, about the AV-8 and the Sea Harrier … ACM exercises from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s were consistent in that jump jets tended to win close-range fights and tended to lose BVR combats. But apparently not against RAF interceptors which in this case had no luck either way.

Second, I’m neutral about the Hornet. Your comments about the Tomcat are not news to me. I’ve read the same rants about the almighty F-14D since the late 1980s. It was exaggeration then, and still is. Regardless of what you think of the F-18, keeping the Grumman production line open for a dinosaur like the F-14 did not make sense. Sorry but navy bean counters are not supposed to be sentimental just because you and some of the pilots are. I’m perfectly aware that Super Hornets will probably cost more than predicted, but that is par for the course.

Third, back in the 1970s, the USAF boys from Holloman AFB pitted their brand new F-15s against some ancient F-4Ns from NAS Dallas. The Phantom pilots made mincemeat of the Eagles. The F-4s returned with their splitter plates covered with silhouettes of the F-15s they killed in ACM practice. Doesn’t experience count for something?

Last, I mentioned the A-6 because in 1965, some experts made similar assumptions and forecasts about the future of naval aviation when they learned of the Intruder’s acceptance by the fleet. They claimed that a less complex, less expensive, subsonic bomber was a regression that could only spell doom for the crews. They were wrong. The Navy could have opted for shipboard F-111s if they wanted them bad enough. The Ardvark was ultimately more capable. But the F-111 (or TFX) was also very costly and used up too much of the limited deck space. Much like the A-5 Vigilante.

The A-6 attack units managed to carry on sufficiently without F-111 performance and cost, and that brings us to a point that needs to get across: NICE TO HAVE is not the same as NEED TO HAVE. And the navy does not need the F-14D.

its aboute the brains and skills not the tecno as in a american position they
cant even make a good training sceduele and the british are to kind so i would go
with the russians and the one and only su-30 russian style

PAVE TACK, i’m sorry, but you’re an idiot; i’m not talking only about the original F-14D from 1980, but also the F-14D SUPER TOMCAT 21 concept, supposed to REPLACE the F-14. the Super Tomcat 21 was designed as an advanced strike fighter, as already explained above. the Super Hornet isn’t a NEED TO HAVE, it is a NEED TO KICK OFF-DECK! it’s actually INFERIOR to the original F/A-18A, let alone the F-14. i rest my case.

no one denied experience makes a difference…

the F-111 was not only to big for carriers, it couldn’t generate required acceleration on the glidepath.

the F-111 TFX was a mistake, at least for the navy, that much is obvious. the plane was a “missileer”, nothing else, even McNamara’s Whiz Kids labeled it as such. the A-6 was a good airplane, very aerodynamically efficient and able to carry heavy loads and deliver them; it was the bomber mainstay of the navy alpha strikes, and served as a Wild Weasel on occasion.

if you call that a rant, then well… suffice to say, you’re not knowledgeable enough to decide WHAT gets put on our flattops.

Best warplane, the F-35 is 80% overweight and NOT the superfighter everyone builds it up to be. while definitely the winner of the JSF competition, it is nothing more than a cheap multi-role alternative to the F/A-22. it never could’ve taken on Super Flankers, Raptors, or Typhoons in an equal capacity.

mohammad banglafighter is entitled to his opinion, and at least he explained why, although i disagree

Well hello everyone this is very interesting and i like the unbiased comment of the russian american ,the f22 does look good and im sure they are not telling us all it can do either ,the russian migs are great fighters from what i can see but from what i read its hard to do manuvers at mach 2-3 ,and only when they are pitted against each other will we see which is best ,i think stealth will be better but who really knows ?one thing for sure i think russia has it over usa in missiles (moskit)etc and the china russian indian 3 will be trouble for sure one day ,this is a very interesting read http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.world-chinese.com/Eng/441.asp&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search?q=the+war+is+not+far+from+us%3F&hl=en,as to what they might be up to and funny eneogh a lot of it appears to be coming true , no matter who hates the usa the world does owe a lot to the effort in the world war2 the industial might sure helped although they were very lucky i think against the better german army at that time ,the big mistake germany made was invading russia had they taken the uk 1st it would have been different i think as a lot of bluff was used by the uk in fake armies they had for that reason to fool them ,however i still believe that i would rather be friends and allies with the usa rather than russia or china ,how could you ever trust them ? but it wont matter anyway if another clinton gets in,(both are backed by chinese money very sus) the last one helped china heaps in the secrets dept(inbetween the cigaring of monica ,what a president lol)) and helped make them the power house they are today and the most likely threat of the future ,but the usa has some great things we dont know much about like mach 6 jets they are devolping to replace the sr71 (now there is a great jet if ever i saw one ) i mean how could they build a great jet like that in the 60s and not come up with a better fighter ? im mystified by that, but im sure we dont know all of what they have but the crushing of the usa jets to appease russia while they carried on devoloping missiles etc was just stupid .the cost of the f22 is high and comes to the conclusion are you better off having 2-5 times the number compared to 1 ? i think i would rather have the numbers personaly,but the way the world is going i think we might find out sooner than later unfortunately !

Well ive read some great comments on here but its hard to tell truth from fiction ,russia should sell australia jets if its good eneough to sell them uranium (how stupid )what australia needs is a jet with long range ,fast , mabey stealth and a great range of firepower ,mabey a russian usa mix ?and we should be buying those tomcats and improving them they were great fighters but with a lot of upkeep but with newer engines and upgrades would suit us well mabey a bit of stealth and they would have been cheap too i think ,its hard to tell the best jets as i think in the exercises they are not allowed to use certain things as far as i know ,but please correct me if im wrong ,i think the usa is going for space control and are a long way ahead of other countries in this i think ,the russian mssiles are very very good from what i can work out and better than any usa ones ,which might make a big difference to the outcome in fighter jets ! i dont think anyone knows the real capabilities of the f22 ,and the new su50 sounds pretty good .the mach 6 jet might exist as there is a pic of it refueling in mid airhttp://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_fr/m_articles/Aurora/Avions_planetaires_v2US.html interesting !

Based on what i have seen in these videos the su-37 gets my vote but on what i have seen i real life the Typhoon and yes i have seen all of them in real life. The raptor is a flying brick its wing span is 44ft and wing area is 840ft2 (squared) yea it is one of the fastest fighters in the world but not hard to miss with 20 or 30mm rounds The eurofighter helmet tracking can ignore its stealthand now is being fitted with 3d vectoring thrust.I prefer the berkut though to the raptor and other su’s. This is my opinion

well, well, well, we have newcomers! welcome! please, share more of your opinions!

Jack first, i guess. while that article you posted confirmed a little of what I’ve always said, that at least some of the Chinese are preparing for a not yet inevitable war with the US. but China becoming Nazi Germany, and studying Hitler’s mistakes so that “[they] won’t make them again”? seems a little far-fetched to me… and no, Hitler made the “right” decision in invading Russia, Stalin would’ve turned on him anyway, Hitler just beat him to the draw, Stalin never thought their little peace treaty would crumble so fast. no, Hitler’s mistake was in assuming Russia would be conquered in a matter of weeks, like Europe, and in not equipping his soldiers for winter warfare, something the Russians have a reputation for (relatively) excelling in. as to bringing politics into this, i dont care one way or another, if i’d had my way, Richardson would be president, but he dropped out; wasn’t one of the front-runners. as to the SR-71 being a fighter? that was the YF-12, a failed fighter variant. and as to mach 6 super jets, here’s what i wrote earlier:

“as to tyler, looks like we have an argument from the total other end of the spectrum. what exactly can the YAB-1 COIL Airborne Laser accomplish? it’s still in testing, and in a major conventional war it’s useless unless you want to use it to snipe other planes, something i’m not even sure is possible. it was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles. exactly what do ballistic missiles do in a conventional war? the Objective Force Warrior again is still barely past development, the DD-21 concept destroyers again aren’t even built yet, and what Mach 6 bomber? the Aurora? that’s recon, mister, and we’re not even sure that even exists. and besides, how much do you think all this costs? the navy never meets its quota of aircraft bought per year, due to costs, how do you think they can afford more than a couple of DD-21’s? our illustrious presidents keep slashing taxes and increasing spending, and right now most of that spending goes to Iraq. and have you read the whole articles you’ve listed? everything displayed is either experimental, in development, or isn’t even going to be possible for the next decade. if you look at our military NOW and in the next coupla years, we’re screwed. the navy just killed aviation for the next 20 years with the Super Hornet, which is inferior in all respects to the F-14D Super Tomcat 21, the other proposed Tomcat replacement with increased strike capability and revamped everything-avionics, fly-by-wire, the works. the super hornet is even inferior in tests to the original Hornet! we look at the air force; ok, F/A-22, a coupla squadrons of those, AND aging F-15 and F-16 fighters that have only half the performance they had 2 decades ago, B-2s that can be detected on low-frequency WW2 type radar (the Brits proved this during Desert Storm), B-1Bs i’ll give the chair force kudos for, and B-52’s, venerable and slow, good missileers but that’s about it. and as i said earlier, you look at china, you see…”

yuh see? even if such technology did exist, it’d be way to expensive for the US military. and as to your assertions about numbers vs. tech and cost, if the F/A-22 can’t be seen until it fires eight missiles at six Su-37s, then maybe the Raptor isn’t such a bad idea…

melanie, why does Austrailia? I understand that you generally support the US in terms of operations overseas (Iraq is a bad example), but F/A-18s and F-35s should suffice, the Hornet is a good multi-role fighter (just lacks range), and the F-35 is STOVL, semi-stealthy, and good, just a little overweight. why you need Su-27s to defend yourself… it’s not like Malaysia or Indonesia are gonna attack you, is it?

no, Sticks, the F/A-22 is not one of the fastest fighters in the world, because most fighters can achieve Mach 2.5. i’ve never heard that the EF-2000’s helmet can ignore stealth… yeah, the Berkut is pretty cool, and you are entitled to your opinion

All these air craft have tremendous capabilities in speed and maneuverability. In a low alt dog fight situation in my opinion I believe it would be the U.S. F-22 out of the three you have to realize U.S. pilots just plain have more flight time than the any pilots in the world this has nothing to do with whose better its who is more experienced in a tactical situation. Plus if our own F-15’s packing advanced radar systems could not target this plane what makes you think any other plane in the world would be able to target it even if it could get it in its sights. Also if you don’t know the F-15 has yet to be shot down in air to air combat situation, it is no slouch. And if you want to take the fight to high alt the F-22 has more power and gets better fuel economy and can execute combat maneuvers at altitudes than these other planes can’t even fathom at up to 60,000 feet the next closest air craft is the Typhoon at 55,000 but it cannot do combat maneuvers at this altitude. The F-22 can also tactically kill you before you know it is there by trailing an F-22 with its active radar scanning targets while the other sneaks in and destroys you undetected. You can go on and on. These other air craft are awesome but technologically and performance wise and with the tactical experience of the pilots the F-22 is virtually unbeatable in a real air to air situation. I think the flanker could possibly compete in maneuverability but in a real time intercept situation it would never come to that. The raptors would fly high and undetected attack fast and hard before the opponent can even react to what’s happened that’s why its called the RAPTOR. Then if you manage to avoid the first attack you still don’t know where the attack is coming from because of advanced battle tactics allowed by the Raptor’s advanced targeting capabilities and you will have two choices after burn your ass out of there or try to find a ghost and get within sight of this aircraft. Countries are scrambling right now trying to counter this plane. Did you now the first flanker flew in 1977 that is amazing and scary just think if the Soviet Union would not have fallen what the free world would be facing now in terms of air superiority fighters. That is credit to Russian ingenuity. Well I pray that the capabilities of these mighty weapons may never see the blood of war. But if we must go to war I am glad we have the Raptor.
Peace to all. No warrior wishes for war but if we must fight, fight to win.

it is NEVER the aircraft that wins a dog fight. History has shown this.
the usaf and the usn have youngsters who did not ” make it” in competetive civilian opportunities.
they are not the “best of the best — sir” and NEVER will be.
the best of US products enter private companies, health, engineering and law.
the rest go for careers in law enforcement, govt. agencies, IRS etc
The lowest level go into the armed forces on the AVERAGE.
This does not mean that a FEW smarter kids do not leak into the forces.
so, guys keep this in mind when u talk about “taking on” the other air forces!!!
U make me laugh: thank God!!!
I was an MD at 22 and I find it interesting that at 32 my Residents cannot remember what i leanred 32 yrs ago!!

It is pointless arguing about which country or even (continent)has the best pilots or most advanced weapons systems these discussions invaribly descend into jingoistic tripe.
2 things to consider, 1. when it comes to which nationality has the best pilots it should be obvious that its the country that spends the most cash on training and or has most current actual combat experience that produces the best pilots, ergo training(hours flown) + experience = Israel!
2. The Typhoon has no stealth capability this will inevitably prove to be an achilles
heel when compared to aircraft such as the raptor which is still evolving. sorry europe. If only life where this simple.

anoop, i dont know why you keep bringing this up, we all know American kids aren’t the best, hell, I’m a high schooler, i see it all first-hand! that said, as i stated a long time before, according to Thomas L. Friedman, Americans continue to triumph in INNOVATION, and that translates to cockpit tactics.
but compared to the Russian, Indian, Chinese, etc. air arms, Americans are still on average on top. send an American fighter against any other CONTEMPORARY fighter, and the American has as good a chance as any of winning. true, Americans rely on AWACS/AWE&C, but for good reason: when coordinated from the air by command&control platforms, pilots and planes are much more lethal. guaranteed, in a war against, say China, in an air engagement, half the enemy J-10s, Su-27s, and J-8s would be shot down at BTR before they even knew they were being illuminated. AWACS can act as the radar for a missile, meaning the fighter never has to light off.

again, you make true points, anoop, but they’re too bigoted, and besides, we’ve all heard this before. come up with some new material.

I’m very glad you brought up history, because that is an aspect of this post which has been consistently left out and/or misrepresented.

To begin, I have to say I agree with you about Americans. We are dumb, especially those involved in aviation. That’s why we invented the Airplane. So we could show everyone how stupid we are by doing stuff like flying the first plane with ailerons (that idea clearly never took off).

I intend to counter your baseless arguments about American pilots being undereducated and less competent by bringing up a man named John Boyd. He was orginally an enlisted member of the USAAF, then went on to get his commission through the GI bill. Long story short, he eventually ended up as a Fighter Weapons School Instructor at Nellis AFB, flying the Hun (F-100). While there, he demonstrated his skill as a pilot by putting out a standing challenge- he challenged any pilot, from any service (and i believe country) to beat him in a dogfight, and he never lost. But the amazing part was the conditions he set. Boyd would start on the defensive, with the challenger on his six. The dogfight lasted only 40 seconds, and if Boyd did not win by then (with a guns kill) the challenger won the bet. Boyd never lost. period. He was pretty incompetent.

After being arguably the most legendary fighter pilot of all time, Boyd went into the academic community and developed the most important concept of aeronautical engineering to date for fighter aircraft. He did this in his spare time while going through Grad School at Georgia Tech. The concept is Called Energy-Manueverability, or EM for short. I’m sure you know what this is though right, i mean you got your MD at 22, you must be smart… Oh wait, you don’t know Jack F***ING SH*T about flying an airplane, so i’ll briefly explain. Basically EM is a formula used to calculate the performance of an airplane at certain altitudes and airpspeeds. It determines how tight it can turn, how many G’s it can pull, and how fast it can climb under given conditions. Using this, a pilot can look at his charts and an enemy aircraft’s charts and determine at what speed and altitude he should engage in order to outperform the enemy. It sounds simple, but it revolutionized every single aspect of military fighter aviation, for all countries. Please look this up if you don’t understand it, you can find summaries on wikipedia.

So anoop, what I’m telling you is that an American Air Force Officer, who was prior ENLISTED, was not only the best fighter pilot to ever live, but did more for military aviation than anyone in the history of the world. So before you make baseless claims about Americans being dumb and incompetent, do your homework and find some real evidence to back up your claims. Your baseless arguments do nothing but make you look like a fool, especially given your status as a doctor. If you have sources to back up your claims that smart Americans do not join the military I would be happy to entertain your arguments, but until then watch your mouth, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, I wanted to make a quick point about the exercise in India you keep mentioning. What you forgot to mention was the timing of that exercise. It took place very close to the same time when Congress was voting on what to do with the F-22. This is my own thought and opinion, but consider this: If our F-15’s and 16’s had a good showing against the Indians, how likely would Congress be to support spending inordinate amounts of money on the Raptor? I say not very. If on the other hand, we got messed up, as was the case, Congress may look and say “wow, we need to get on the ball and buy this new fighter so we can get better.” Just food for thought.

One more comment, this one for the F-14 guy. The F-14 is not the amazing aircraft you think it is. Its swing wing design is a piece of crap and always has been. It adds unneccessary weight without adding much performance. The aircraft is underpowered, overweight, and obsolete. If you paid attention in Top Gun you’d notice that the entire reason for having Top Gun is because the only way an F-14 can win in a dogfight is by having a superior pilot. Granted, the aircraft has had an outstanding career and done amazing things, but that is a tribute to the pilots, not the aircraft.

and you point is?, of course the F-14 was an amazing aircraft, variable-geometry wings work, us and the Russians have proven that constantly with the FB-111, Tu-22M, Tu-160, Su-24, and B-1. on the contrary, the swing wings allow for better low-speed and high-speed performance; the F-14 has less wing-loading then the F-15. and no, TOPGUN was created to increase the kill ratio in Vietnam from 2:1 to 13:1, and the F-14 was proven superior to the F-4. besides, you’ll notice if you read my former posts that i’m not advocating the F-14, but the F-14D Super Tomcat 21, which is a revamped F-14 with new parts, systems, avionics, weapons, etc. supposed to replace the F-14, but the Pentagion was more impressed with the shiny new digital cockpit in the piece-of-sh** Super Hornet. and Top Gun was a horrible movie, only a few of the dogfight scenes were good.

yeah, the “stealth” technology is the best!! remember the f-117 down in yugoslavia??
WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OTHERS COUNTRIES GO TO WAR WITH AMERICA, THEY LOSE!!! remember Viethnam?
remember the song Amerika from Ramstein????
You should be the number one, in making ignorant people Americans.

Su-37 roasts all the competition. The only thing the F-22 has on the SU-37 is it is more stable. The only reason anyone would choose the F-22 over the Su-37 is because it is american made. Those ppl need to realize that just because we have the best of SOME fields that we are not best in ALL!

maharba, that F-117, as stated earlier, was shot down by a wily Serbian commander who kept his radar off and tracked the plane visually and infrared until the F-117 was well within the missile envelope and detectable. stealth doesn’t make a plane invisible, folks, it just makes it extremely hard to detect for a certain amount of time, but eventually the plane will generate enough of a return that radar can catch it. as to Vietnam, that was a military victory, but a political defeat, read THE SLING AND THE STONE: On War in the 21st Century. it’s about 4th generation warfare, and details how the Viet Cong, Sandinistas, Red Chinese, etc. all won through such tactics. we’ve only lost wars through political pussyfooting.

Pedro A. Cosme Jr. makes a good point, we need to remember that others are surpassing us and we need to fix that by better educating our kids and getting more scientists and engineers into the general population. that said, I disagree, you send an F/A-22 against an Su-37, the Raptor will probably win, but in terms of multi-role usefulness, I’d go with the Super Flanker.

i still say that an F-14D Super Tomcat 21 outfitted for the 21st century with stealth, fly-by-wire, TV, and new systems would kill all…

Why are you all acting like pussy’s. Why don’t we put them to the actual test and see what happens. Why in the hell is the SU part of this discussion, it’s a piece of shit. Even the bloody f-22’s stealth doesn’t work in raining conditions. The best plane here is the EF 2000. I am not from USA, BRITAIN OR scummy RUSSIA. The British have created the best jet ever even the F-22 will break sweat

J MAN, sorry to disappoint you, but the Eurofighter is not the best. it isn’t stealthy, it isn’t as maneuverable, it cant even carry as much, I’ve seen the hardpoints. but you’re entitled to your opinion, just try to better back it up next time

Have to agree with ‘tomcat’ to have a valid opinion you must first be in command of the facts, i’ve recently retired from USAF. AWACS 2 b specific, AWACS crews by nature have to be objective,i.e. when participating in excercises we’ll try and get any aircraft we’re told to shot down. The facts are that even with our big radar the raptor was very difficult (not impossible) to get a track on. As for the typhoon, it veritably ‘lights up the screen’ we could see it coming at K100+ (exact nm classified). I doubt raptor pilots are breaking too much sweat. I guess Jman you are attempting to convince us that yours is a completly objective point of view by claiming to be neither Russian, American or even British. Re. your last sentence 2/6/08, who else but a Brit would claim that the ‘British’ had created “the best jet ever”. I’m reliabley informed that the Italians and Germans had something to do with this ‘Creation’. C’mon Jman, fess up, what part of england are you from?

I believe that there is not a definitive answer to which aircraft is better.The most deciding factor is the pilot. But for the sake of conversation i beleive that they all have their advantanges and flaws. F-22 is an immpressive but extremely expensive plane. The main irony in the Raptor is that even though it carries the best all around radar of them all (APG 77 if i remember correctly) the moment it uses it, the stealth element goes out of the equation, radar beaming works both ways (to RWR systems).So the Raptor has to rely and AWACS data link and its own infra red sensors to have a real first shot advantange. Second the design of the Raptor is a comprimise (ver good but still a comprimise)between stealth characteristics and fighter agility and dog fighting ( even taking into account the thrust vectoring of 20 degress upwards or downwards) so if the stealth elemnt is removed then it is no better than the other counter planes.Usually though it will get the first and critical shot due to its stealthness.
As far as the EF 2000 is concerned is a extremely agile aircraft and simultaneously a very balanced design (for an all around fighter). This plane was designed as the European answer to Sukhois 27 (and hopefully their successors). Eurofighter is an inherently designed unstable aircraft in order to achieve these impressive loops and turns ( WITH AN EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED FBW SYSTEM and vector thrusting in the later tranches). It also has a complete set of avionics ( the Captor radar in the first tranches and a phased arrray radar in the next, together with a very effective Infra red tracking sensor and a very capable self protection system of RWR,Jamming devices, Missile Approach Warning, etc)very reliable engines and air frame. IRIST and METEOR missiles are also qyite deadly. In short is a very noteworthy design. Only flaws are limitted ammo capacity and lack of the stealth element.
Last but certainly not least lie the Super Flankers which in reallity are a whole group of airplanes.As a flying machine it is maybe the best of them all ( if you take the latest version of SU -37 WITH THE ENGINES OF MIG 1-42 and thrust vectoring of almost 35 degrees upwards and downwards and the enhanced (bigger) brought forward canards) it can achieve “unrealistic” and extremelly agile and tight turns and yaws (not just the famous cobras and Culbit 360 cycle with the plane performing in the beginning a cobra, but when reaching an angle of 120 degrees not dropping the nose down but continue the turn untill the plane comes in to the same direction again with a minimum loss of height but with almost 90% of speed cut, but also the taillside and some other stunts i do not recall their names)Unfortunately for Sukhois most of the good stuff end here.The Russians advertizing their plane say a lot stuff about their avionics, their engines ( how reliable they are with their new FADEC systems- a system the USA and the Europeans have for at least twenty to thirty years- and their missiles {new archer (R-73)versions capable of effective infra red sensor sight up to 120 degrees right or left of the marking axis} all these coupled with a helmet aimimg device(as with the two other planes though the effective sight of their missiles varies from 75 to 90 degrees))is an extremely deadly combination.One more thing the Russians say is the notorious tail sting which is supposed to carry a rear radar and self protection system, Some beleive that Sukhois can fire their missiles bacwards using this radar. The case is that nothing of these has actually been proven. Traditionally Russian planes suffered from reliability and availability ( engine) problems and inferrior electronics. So all these extraordinary paper capabilities have to be dealt with cussion.
As the best combination of political and operational concerns the plane i would go for is the EUROFIGHTER (because the F-22 IS NOT FOR SALE and much more expensive). The Sukhoi remains the x factor (reliabilty of the aircraft as a weapon is questionable -unfortunately being just a superb flying machine is not enough-the only proven element about Russian missiles is the Former Eastern German MIG 29 Archer missiles which totally outclassed the Sidewinders in a famous test but that is another story.
To be the Devil’s Advocate i am a bit puzzled about the F-35. If it is supposed to be much cheaper than the F-22 and right from the start available for exports how good is it going to really be? I can see a parity with the couple of F-15,F-16. If this happens then F-35 will be a very good plane. I suppose that the export versions will be versions with inferrior to the US equivalent,capabilities.To finish this little essay Again the Pilot is the main deciding factor

A little clarificatin has to be amde on the Su 37 engines.in my previous text i mentioned that latest version of it carried the MIG 1-42 engines.THE SU-37 carried some especially redesigned and smaller MIG 1-42 engines which produced almost the same thrust performance (the MIG 1-42 is a substantially larger plane). These modofications were made to counter the EF 2000 thrust/weight ratio and give sukhois better power surplous and improve its constant rate of turn (mostly). The forward bringing and enlargement of canards aimed at improving the instant rate of turn

Bandsaw makes good points (I’ve think I’ve found another kindred spirit lol; Alex Ryan was one, but it looks like he’s AWOL…), and thank you for the technical aspects on the Su-37, LordBill, your thoughts are well-received…

now to MY rant, copied from the link to MY Yahoo 360 page in which you will find much in the way of enlightening information. here’s an excerpt from one of my blog entries:

“Before i begin my rant, let me start with asking you a question. Let’s say you were in command of a navy, a fleet with an air arm. Let us further say that you wanted to replace several aircraft in that fleet. These planes are approaching their 40th birthday (making them senior citizens), and in some cases have exceeded it, and all require about 50 hours of increasingly difficult and expensive maitenance work for every 1 hour in the air. But these planes are valuable representatives of your navy, still holding their own in a number of missions against newer, more capable comabt systems. Now, to replace them, do you choose a slightly more maneuverable airshow performer that can barely break the sound barrier and can only manage half the range, payload, and capability of the original plane you wanted to replace? Or do you choose the much more capable, longer ranged aircraft with a better and bigger payload capacity. Of course, if you had any brains at all, you would choose the latter, which represents, in this case, the F-14D Super Tomcat 21. Then why, you ask, is the navy choosing the other contender, the Super Hornet, if it is inferior? The answer requires a little more backround information. As you know, we are in a budget deficit, and all branches of the military have been making budgetary cut backs. The Super Tomcat 21 costs way more than the Super Hornet, and so we couldbuy more Super Hornets than Super tom 21’s with the same, or a lesser, amount of cash. It may make logical sense, but i don’t think it does, since we are giving our pilots more inferior toys to play with against our enemies than they had before! As mentioned in the previous blog entry, the Super hornet has half the range of a standard F-14D Super Tomcat without the “21″ suffix, which is why the Navy is working on a tanker version of the Super Hornet. Another problem is that the KA-6D and EA-6B airframes we use for aerial refueling and electronic warfare, respectively, in the fleet are being fazed out of service due to their age. The issue with making tanker and EW variants of the Super Hornet is that, to make the plane supersonic, the designers made the wing’s leading edges razor thin, which does not help lift in the least. The Hornet would therefore not be able to carry as much equipment as is necessary for the job as the original A-6 variant aircraft! Especially since a lot of hardpoints, normally reserved for buddy packs or EW pods, will have to be taken up by drop tanks to maek sure the plane can actually reach the target area! The solution, of course, would be to refurbish the A-6 type aircraft and put them back into the front lines, but right now the Pentagon is very impressed with the shiny new glass cockpit avionics in the Sper Hornet, so F-14 advocates in the navy are finding this rather difficult.

So you now see a good portion of the problem. This is a quote from the previous blog entry on the topic, and it is devastatingly critical and frank about the F/A-18E/F’s problems.

[this is from an actual dissertation of sorts by RAdm Paul T. Gilchrist, among others] Owing to its high drag and weight (and probably other factors), the F/A-18E is significantly poorer in acceleration than the F/A-18A. Also, its combat ceiling is substantially lower, and its transonic drag rise is very high. We have stayed in touch with some pilots at the Navy’s test center and have gathered some mind boggling anecdotal information. Here are some examples:

An F/A-18A was used to “chase” an F-14D test flight. The F-14D was carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, two 280-gallon drop tanks, two Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The chase airplane was in a relatively “clean” configuration with only a centerline fuel tank. At the end of each test flight, the chase airplane was several miles behind the test airplane when the chase airplane reached “bingo” fuel and had to return to base.

An F/A-18E Super Hornet is tested using the same chase airplane, an earlier model Hornet, in the same configuration. The chase airplane does not need full thrust to stay with the test airplane.

An F/A-18E/F in maximum afterburner thrust cannot exceed Mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet even when it is in the clean configuration (no external stores). At 10,000 feet, the F-14D can exceed Mach 1.6.

A quote from a Hornet pilot is devastatingly frank: “The aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s.” The most devastating comment came from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and says: “We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them.” ”

it’s my opinion, backed up by multiple experts and operators, and I’m sticking to it.

Hey guys, left this thing for a month and wow…
Something I’ve noticed concerning a dogfight: Do we all agree that a tighter sustained turn (a turn you can hold for longer without losing too much airspeed) is more useful in close combat? Far as I can see the Eurofighter Typhoon seems to manage high alpha (angle of attack) better for longer than both the Raptor and the Flanker. The Flanker can certainly pull more but only for brief periods. That said nine times out of ten, you only get into a dogfight when you haven’t been able to kill him at range.

I love the Raptor, it has that distinct advantage of stealth and fantastic self-defence capabilities, I just think for how much it is worth, the USA could have made something significantly better.

I love the Flanker, because of it’s crazy agility and simplicity. For how much it’s worth I think it would be a fantastic replacement for our (Australia…mate) Super Hornets. Also the later varients like the Su-30 have very efficient avionics (that’s to shut up Western Cy/Su-27 opponents) and great missile range.

I love the Eurofighter, Great multi-role capability (I would think better than the F-22 adnd Su-30), awesome controls and agility and good BVR performance.

HOWEVER: ALEX DOES NOT LIKE THE SUPER HORNET. PUT SIMPLY - NOT AS GOOD AS STANDARD HORNET!!! COME ON!

(Dear USA, since you aren’t using them could we borrow/keep your F-14s? Please and thank you)

Yes Alex i agree with you up to a certain point. For up to third generation fighters constant or sustainable rate of turn would be the most decisive factor (although the fighter with the best instant rate of turn would have an advantage at the initial phase of the dog fight before a series of tight turns, yaws and other acrobatic stuff starts). Nowadays it is the aiming devices incorporated at the helmet, missiles with extremely capable sensors with 90 or above degrees towards missiles bore sight and vector thrusting that probably will decide the outcome of the battle in a close range. I agree though that it still is a factor which gives advantages in greater parts of the “flight envelope” meaning: leaving better power margin surpluses after a tight turn in a greater variety of altitudes and speeds. That is also why the Russians are trying to further upgrade the performance of their engines by testing MIG 1-42 redesigned engine variants. The problem with this is that it has not been proved to work without reliability issues (i am talking about engines which can provide up to 16500 kg with afterburner each giving the last sukhoi a thrust to weight ratio reaching 1.32 at air to air format while EF 2000 has about 1,18
A fighter has to have two main things in order to be considered a decent dog fighter. First very low “wing load” (there is another word for it i do not remember right now)which means less weight per square centimeter of wing span which means a big wing area for turning fast and achieving high angle of attack (although the structure of the fuselage and the position of the engines also play a vital role -you do not want to have air supply problems for your engines at high angles of attack). Second you must have a thrust to weight ratio of preferably above 1 in order to have a good sustainable rate of turn. An example is the comparison of the F-16 vs MIRAGE 2000. The French is a more dog fighter design but due to its underpowered engines (SNECMAS are woefully underpowered) the American falcon has better sustainable rate of turn better acceleration and in general greater attributes in a dog fight (except the angle of attack and instant rate of turn parameters in which the French design is better due to its delta wing)
Regardless of the above the most agile fighter of them all must be the S-37 with the forward listing wings although that is also another story because we do not know if it can be an operational fighter or a technology testing plane

BTW: while I acknowledge speed isn’t everything in a plane, not being able to pass mach below 10,000 feet is really not good enough. God I feel like killing an American… (boots up XBOX…Over G fighters…Archer away…)

just to add, the F-14A DID have canards (sort of) that were recessed in the leading edge of the plane’s “shoulders”. high maitenance and cost eventually forced the navy to remove them from all Tomcats.

BORING JARGON
*Semi-Active guidance requires the launch aircraft to maintain a lock for the entire duration of the missile’s effective flight. This is a limitation in combat as it slaves the aircraft into a lethal game of chicken with a dangerous hostile foe.
**An Active Terminal Phase means the missile guides independantly of the launch aircraft.
***Update guidance is often wrongly labelled “fire and forget”. Missiles like the AMRAAM and R-77 require mid-course updates from the Fire Control Computer aboard the Launch aircraft. This doesn’t allow the launch aircraft (lets say F/A-18E) to turn and defeat hostile missiles but does allow for multi-target launches. I did here a rumour the rear-ward looking radar aboard Su-30’s allows to give midlaunce updates whilst retreating.

SUMMARY
Sukhoi fighter in this senario can fire air-to-air missiles at a greater range than all American fighters currently in service. It is important to notice the AIM-54 has a decisive advantage over even the best Russian missile.

“Although the F-14D was to be the definitive version of the Tomcat, the requirement to equip all fleet units with the D model was never realized after the new Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, canceled it after 55 aircraft were funded, because of a disagreement with Congress.”
See? GAH. I’ll shut up now. I’ll let you guys talk a bit.

Good evening every one F14DS ROCK thanks for the reminder about wing loading. If we compare the F-14D with the F-18 E/F in pure dog fight skills the F-14D is much better. Do not forget that Super Hornets claim to have equal agility as their predecessors A,B,C,D. THESE PLANES (AS YF-17) WERE BADLY BEATEN BY THE F-16 BACK IN THE 80s.The Greek AIR FORCE test them both i have studied the matter extensively. Now if we compare F-16 TO F-14D the latter has huge advantage in BVR fighting and the two are relatively equal in a dog fight with F-16 winning at low altitudes and the Tomcat having an advantage in the other. Variable geometry wing allows for instantaneous speed and altitude shifts without much power bleeding on the turn. The F-14 would require an even stronger engine than the D version to be an all around dog fighter ,even with the new engines has a thrust to weight ratio of 0,88 which of course is better than the previous 0,62 in the A version.As air to ground i would take the Tomcat due to its greater range, durability (two engines) and weapon loading and with the synthetic aperture radar the F-14 has the same ground attack capabilities with the F-15E (almost). As far as the missiles are concerned the figures i saw appear correct . Bare in mind though that these figures are the maximum ones. So in order to have a better idea of the real radius of each missile cut the range by at least 50%. The new range is the no escape zone. Each missile every times it turns to face the target bleeds power. If the target spots the incoming threat from lets say 50 miles and starts evasive action then by the time the missile reaches the target it will not have any energy left to hit the plane. If one the other hand the same happens in less than 20 miles the situation will be much different. The main point here is that the effective ranges for every missile are about half of the ideal ones. One last thing is that in order to have serious chance of knocking the enemy plane down is the infra red factor. Radar Warning devices will alert the target of you having him locked in. So the only way of true surprise is sneaking from an unguarded radar area (by using a data link with an AWACS showing not only the position of the enemy plane but also the area that in which it can see you with its radar)with your radar closed and fire an infra red missile like the MICA IR, METEOR IR and ALAMO IR.Even to this there are counter measures (MAWs Missile Approaching Warning devices) but i do not think that they will save the target. It is true that no missile of the above is a 100% fire and forget missile ( unless you fire it with its radar on but you have to be close to the target to do that). One last thing about the Sukhois, if the rear locking and firing is true then we are talking about a awesome weapon with extremely lethal characteristics).The problem with the Russians is that they have not but just recently realized that a fighting plane is not just a superb wing but a weapon which incorporates and integrates many different technologies to make it more efficient. It is this part where they had and may still have a problem

MAWs sound very interesting (Research time). Notice one thing in an exerpt from your post: “fire an infra red missile like the MICA IR, METEOR IR and ALAMO IR.” Notice how there ISN’T an American one there? Therefore there ISN’T an Australian one! :’(

We seem to be going around in circles (avoided the aged flatspin joke) so how about we have a think about other aircraft. SAAB series (Viggen, Gripen), Dassault series (Mirage 2000, Rafale), Atlas Cheetah, JADF F-2, Panavia Tornado…Just for starters

Hope you guys are enjoying winter, Australia is horribly hot at the moment!
Good hunting Comrades

For the older models Viggen, Cheetah and Jaguar i do not believe there is a point comparing them to the newer planes. So starting with Gripen, it is a magnificent design but it needs a much stronger and preferably not an American engine ( for export reasons). The Rafale is an absolutely competitive to the EF-2000 plane. Eurofighter is a better air to air aircraft (slightly though because the two are relatively equal in agility)) and Rafale is more air to ground (the position of the canards right close in the front part of the delta wing has superior low altitude characteristics for low altitude flying- for a bomber plane but it is not as efficient in the higher altitudes) EF -2000 canards on the other hand right up to the nose of the plane are more efficient as extra lift providers, “air brakes” for tighter turns look for the phenomenon of double vortex if i remember correctly it says what happens when two wings are close in front of each other (the lift produced by both wings is more than the simple sum of the two individually, in short canards help the delta wing function better especially in low altitudes (providing extra lift and reducing drag )where the delta wing is not as efficient as conventional wings.M-2000 as i stated earlier beautiful design very good electronics M-2000-5MK2 with Mica IR and Scalp EG make a deadly combination but i would like to see 2000 extra kgs of thrust in their engine to improve their sustainable rate of turn. Tornado on the other hand very effective interceptor (only BVR, BECAUSE A MIG 29 Would go round them a few times just to say hello before shooting them down) and bomber but lousy dog fighter. As far the infra red missiles are concern i find it difficult to believe that the Americans do not have something equivalent, i am certain that they will produce an Amraam version with IR seeker soon enough for exploiting the stealth characteristics of the Raptor. I hope i helped a bit

Tornadoes were built for long-range patrols over the North Sea, where they would be tasked with shooting down Red bombers over very long ranges. Hence, the ADV is fast, has good systems, and is exceptional at BVR, but it’s less maneuverable than your average F-16A. the GR.4 is a capable bomber, especially at low-level; several GRs made great bombing raids over Iraqi airfields, and the Brits suffered heavily as a result.

as for the Mirage 2000, it’s old, out-dated, and the Rafale is way better. the Rafale in my opinion is better than the EF-2000, because it’s carrier-capable (some of them) and it’s stealthy. I’d love to see a Eurofighter go at it with a Rafale, that’d be interesting.

My money is on the Eurofighter though I guess this decision is an instictive one. Comparing the agility I noted the Rafale’s instantaneous roll-and-bank was faster but the Typhoon’s high-AOA sustained turn would be a far greater asset. Still very acomplished aircraft though! Not sure how the Gripen equates though.
I’ve read a few things about the South African designed Cheetah (Atlas). At first it seems like a botched up Mirage III replacement but like the Kfir there seems to be more too it. Multi-coloured displays, advanced short ranged missiles and flight controls…that kinda thing.
Just had a thought: Am I wrong in thinking that an F-4 Phantom can break Mach below 10,000 ft? Hmmm…F-4 is performs better than Super Hornet…hmmm…

(Big day in Australia, our Prime Minister has acknowledged the “Stolen Generation”. We are very proud of him. )

the Gripen only has one engine which would make it lighter but also less powerful. the Gripen’s good, though, comes from a long line of fabulous Swedish fighters. the Atlas Denel Cheetah is considered the most advanced Mirage III upgrade, although the Kfir comes pretty close. and i think the F-4 can break Mach below Angels 10, since it is supersonic up to twice the speed of sound.

I will agree to the F-14D ROCK , the Gripen has a F404 engine (like the F-18As which have two) which provides about 8500 kg of thrust including afterburner) but it is under powered which is a pity because it is an excellent design. In general MIRAGE IIIs had problems with their delta wings (drag and stalling in low speed issues) and problems with their FBW (fly by wire systems which did not allow them to reach the full potential of their design. KFIRs and CHEETAHs have a more advanced FBW which together with the small “canards” in the front part of the wings have somewhat rectified those problems. A somewhat unknown fighter is the LAVI (Young or Little Lion)(Israel) it was said to be superior to the F-16 in many aspects but it did not became operational for political reasons (also a few tenths of used and cheaper bought F-16 had a saying to that)Finally F-4 is garbage at this time even the Greek versions with the APG -65 radars are not fully battle worthy (except superior BVR AND BOMBING CAPABILITIES TO THE F-16). Those planes have fuselages with more than 30000 flight hours,and are a maintenance nightmare. I would not want my pilots to operate these relics, so it is irrelevant if it can reach 2 max below 10000 feet (afterwards you should probably put them in the “shop” (repairs) and have a terrible availability ratio not to mention the crash hazard( the pilot worths much more than the plane)i mean that those fighters will soon reach the age of 40 years old and no modernization can worth the waste of funds.The same applies to A-7 E/H Corsairs also Greek (as you have probably understood i am Greek)

I think designers need to work out what is really important in an aircraft. Let’s take our beautiful F-14. Good BVR (powerful radar, advanced missiles and good vertical performance), good dogfight (swing wing). That was 1970’s technology. You add all the new radars (MiG-31 - 240* search angle), effective stealth, helmet mounted sights, sattelites, datalinks, fly-by-wire, thrust vectoring, canards…the list is incredible! Imagine applying these features intelligently! Oh and I don’t reckon it would cost all that much either. How much money do you reckon goes into avionics a pilot probably wouldn’t use.
All we need is a brain in there and we’d be fine. I elect “F-14Ds Rock!”

Good morning every one. The issue with the Greek F-4Es is the following. We had a thorough and extensive structural enhancement apart from the avionics improvements. The result was that the cost reached almost half of buying a new plane. The only aspect i respect in the modernizing decision was the APG-65 Radar which is better than the APG-68 CARRIED from UP TO F-16 Block 50 in BVR.(block 52+ and 60 have better capabilities). I believe that despite the restructuring the plane is not as good as it could have been if it had lets say 10000 flight hours less. The strucutural fatique adds up over the years. I fear that because some parts of the fuselage have remained the same the plane will not be fully trustworthy.About the US Navy F-4S i do not think that you keep them still in service, we will continue to use our F-4Es for 10-15 more years (God forbid). Finally i believe that the investment which would worth much more with the money put, should go to a USED F-16A modernised with a better radar than the APG-66 (SOMETHING LIKE THE MLU Program)and depending on how much money you would give to fix the avionics set. We would have bought less planes but for all around purposes the would perform better. Now the F-4Es have to fire the AMRAAMS and then turn and run away from the incoming TURKISH probably F-16 because they are no match for them in a dog fight. Our pilots have performed miracles with the F-4E against F-16s in the past, in spite of the designing differencies but the thing is that the Turks have been able to learn their lessons the hard way (their fighters frequently locked on after a brief but violent duel)and develop tactics and training which have narrowed the gap with our training superiority. I do not enjoy having my pilots flying with these planes and fight under constantly deteriorating conditions.

Aha! That’s theissue exactly with the Tomcat! They had supposedly reached their maximum of flight hours…BUILD MORE. Gah! That or design something newer, like a Tomcat with the latest technology (see above). Man you could smell the curdling Vodka in the cockpit of the poor flanker having to cope with that!

Lol, I’ve lost the URL but there are these great clips on Youtube of the Su-35 and the EF-2000 in a electronically rendered engagment. so funny, in one the Eurofighter blitzs four Su-35s and a SAM and in the other one Su-35 destroys four Eurofighters and an AWACS. So bullshit have a look around.

In military orders interests of the companies play a vital role. To my opinion Tomcats were just fine in coping with the current threats for another 10 years. There is another issue though, somebody must make room and clear the way for the F-35. The technology used in that aircraft and also in the F-22s has cost huge money.So the companies want to have their money back plus interest plus a huge profit on their investments. With the TOMCATS around less F-35 would have been ordered (less money, less profits)This is unacceptable by the big firms. So the TOMCAT is “sacrificed” for THE more money brought by the F-35.Politics.The maximum flight hours is not something to play with. I agree that the US have relatively low limits as far as the total hours are concerned.This is also politics .Consider what happens with a great portion of used planes: they go to support NATO Allies either as a “free” costless solution or at a a very cheap price. In this way NATO Allies are bond to the US logistical system and are dependent to US decisions as far as spare parts, weaponry and the entire use of the plane is concerned (not to mention again the money.See my point? Taking in to account our own planes again they do have reached a critical threshold concerning their structural endurance (40 year old planes with more than 35000 flight hours, many of these in combat like conditions). To make a bitter example is like giving a seventy year old man the heart of a twenty year old man and ask him to run against a twenty five year old man. He will certainly put up a decent fight but i do not expect him to win the contest.
In war a decent fight is not enough. My arguement is that if you have an inferior fighter , you can deal with it by having better trained pilots and tactics. If the enemy pilots improve enough (which is just a matter of time, will and money then the older fighter will become a liability taking its toll in extremely valuable pilot lives.That is why i would prefer an F-16A with an APG-65 radar to a F-4E WITH THE IDENTICAL SET OF AVIONICS. Even if i had 30 instead of 40 planes. Quality superiority can out weigh relatively small quantitative differences (1 to 1,5). Of course quantity has its own quality but this applies to countries who have enough people and resources reserves (certainly not for Greece). As far as the videos are concerned they are cheap advertising tricks not worth of drawing so much attention. If we are talking for the same videos, you will have probably noticed that in both the cases the planes shot down did not even new what hit them. That is totally wrong with all the sophisticated self protection systems carried by both the fighters ( even IR missiles can not out smart those systems which at least should have given each plane a chance of escaping the missiles through flares and maneuvering )and it is one of the factors which removes any credibility from the videos. As far as the AWACS is concerned how the hell did the SU-35 get near enough to fire a long range missile 80-120 km or even closer? The AWACS should have spot it at least 400 km away? The only exception would be the NOVATOR Missile with almost 400 km of maximum radius- again a long shot.

I agree completely in reference to the Quality .vs. Quantity but a compromise is important. The F-14 is an old frame, so sure retire it, just don’t replace it with an inferior aircraft. Simple.
My proposition stands, F-14 wings and fuselage with all the RELEVANT upgrades. Example I would probably install Helmet Mounted Sights for dogfighting but hold off on the “floating HUD” feature found in F-35s. Upgrade engines, longer-ranged missiles and add features for improved agility to cope with modern fighters and you have a design which could comfortably contend with Su-27/30 craft without costing an arm and a leg.
Make improvements that are important and scrap the other ones. Still, in great wisdom you say it is all political. Company X invests in project, Company X has a quiet word with officials and bingo you equip a country with an aircraft which costs so much that it is inefficient and yet marks no substantial improvements. Sick really.
Good night America/Canada/Greece and everyone else.

thanks for the accolades, Alex (Ryan; you’re right, this is going to get confusing), but as to cost, it still probably would’ve been expensive to load a Tomcat with all that stuff, though the performance and capability would definitely be worth it.

i saw “Fighter Fling 2004″, (look it up on YouTube) and a scene that has always stayed with me is the image of broken-up F-14 airframes with the words “The Navy is killing the Tomcat…” and then, in massive capital block letters filled with dollars, “BECAUSE IT HAS TO!”

and LordBill, you’re right, the F-4S was retired, i believe; maybe we should’ve sold them to Greece!

otherwise, not much else new, thanks for all the impressive input, guys, you really know your stuff (as i hope i do), i’m proud to be a part of this community, we’ve sure made it extensive (179 comments lol), we should all go into our respective governments and SHAKE THINGS UP A LOT to fix our respective defense programs.

now all we can do is wait for the next Sewer Bug-supporting bozo to cross our path…

Hello again. Today i would like to ask every one about his thoughts about KOSSOVO declaration of independence. I know it does not have to do with fighters but it is a sign of our changing political consciousness. In case somebody is not familiar with the history of the region i will make a brief introduction. Kossovo is a region (right in the middle of the Balkans) which in the past centuries was the cradle of Serbian history and culture (it was there where the Serbians under King Lazar fought (and died) against the Turks (in 1389) trying to stop them from breaching deep into the Balkans and into Europe. There are many other events which have connected Serbians to this territory during the last centuries.In the 20th century however, things started to change. Until the rise of Tito in power of Yugoslavia (during the WW II) the Serbs WERE THE MAJORITY IN THOSE TERRITORIES. Tito on the other hand was Croatian and with his power he did everything he could to weaken the Serbs which were the most numerous population in Jugoslavia. He moved substantial Albanian populations in those areas and simultaneously forced large parts of Serbs to move to other parts of Yugoslavia changing in this way the synthesis of the local populations. Albanians finally after 40 years breed the Serbs out ( today the ratio is 80% Albanians 15% Serbs and 5% other Slav population maybe Bulgarians)The Serbs feel that their cultural cradle is being threatened and their country is being once again attacked and crippled by the Westerns. The Albanians on the other hand say that they are finally free from the Serbian rule. What do you think will follow? Are we going to see similar movements in for example Scotland,or northern Spain (Vask populations)or the Kurds in Iraq?

sergio first, because it’s the easiest: heckuva good joke, Comrade! “too much Top Gun movie…” lol, my sides are splitting. keep on watching, “men and women of RED OCTOBER”, we’ll be waiting!

as to Kosovo, i’m not terribly educated about Tito’s regime, so everything i know of is from Serbian ethnic cleansing of Albanians and Croats onward. it’s just like in Iraq; can’t we all just get along? Sunnis and Shiites, Iraqis and Turks and Kurds, Muslims and Jews, Christians and… ok, we wont go there. too bad the world aint all white and black. seriously? the Scots wont try it, idk who the Vasks are, (didja mean Basques?), and the Kurds, well, they’ve been trying for decades. i think the Albanians are entitled to their own homeland, and if the Serbs want to visit their heritage birthsite, they should concentrate more on repairing bridges between the two groups and fostering forgiveness and friendship than torching UN checkpoints and American embassies.

ah, going back to the earlier discussion. It was the Russians who destroyed Germany. 75% of land battles in the European theater were between soviet & German forces. Just look at the battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk as brief examples of the epic scale of this struggle. Most German forces went east not west and it was the shear scale of the production of soviet tanks, who with the t-34 being the most advanced at least during the initial stages of the war as well as being massed produced on a massive scale. Do any proper research and you would see that the European theater outcome was largely decided by events in the east on a scale that was never seen on the western front.

uh, blah, we’ve already gone over and finished the WWII who-did-more-the-West-or-the-East thing. and actually, most German forces were actually sent west, because Hitler believed that the West would be easier to defeat. if he could’ve pushed the Allies off Normandy, he would’ve had a secure western border, and could then turn his full attention to the Russians. this was his main strategy, and it ultimately failed, because not only did we Americans and Brits and Canadians and Free French not get the boot into the pond, but the Russians also continued their successful drive into the heart of Germany.

proper research, my ass, “largely decided by events in the east”, geezus, when will you people ever learn? it doesn’t matter that 75% of land battles were in the East between Reds and Krauts. it doesn’t matter that the T-34 was the best all-round tank. all these factors only matter when they’re put together, united. because when every single action is vital, there is no such thing as “most-important” or “largely decided”. yes, the Russians were decisive in the defeat of the Germans, but if the Western Allies had never invaded, do you think the war would’ve been over by 1945? do you honestly believe we would’ve still won?

bottom line - Normandy was just as big (some would argue bigger than) as Stalingrad.

As far as the WW II is concerned, i believe that neither USSR nor USA could have defeated the Germans all alone. It is true that most of the major land battles took place in the east but this is only one side of the coin. The other is that the Soviets suffered enormous losses in human and material resources (the battles of the first six months including the enormous KIEV pocket, 667000 soviet prisoners of war, the early stages of Typhoon not to mention the first two months where no one could stop the Germans). Also in early 1942 Soviets lost the first battle of Kharkov , later Sevastopol(May-June) from Manstein and later in case blue they had to retreat a few hundred miles in order to avoid encirclement (they were aware of the German plans). It was only after KURSK that the Soviets regained the initiative and drove the Germans back. Stalingrad was a huge blow for the Germans but not the fatal one. Manstein again two months after the fall of the sixth army under Paulus , had crushed the Soviet armies who tried to exploit the gap in the German line and cut off all German forces fighting in Caucasus, in the second battle of Kharkov in February-March 1943 and restoring the balance in the eastern front.It was only after KURSK-OREL (6-10 July the German attack, afterwards the Soviets launched a huge counter attack) and their defeat in the Dnieper’ river some months later (November 1943-early January 1944) that the Germans lost every hope they had for a draw. Afterwards the road to Berlin would be one way trip. My point is that the Soviets in the first two desperate years rely heavily on US lend lease help in the form of tanks (mostly Grants and a few Shermans), many trucks, various other supplies and planes P-39, P-40s. The T-34/76 were amazing tanks due to the radical changes which brought to the design of the tank (slopped armor, wide trucks, a relatively good main gun, high reliability and a more than satisfactory speed )which were far superior to the Pkmfv IIIs and IVS (early versions). Poor training and tactics though took their toll causing huge losses among those tanks. The same applies to the KV -1 series (better-thicker armor though not so slopped as in the T-34). The arrival of Tigers and Panthers made things even worse for Soviet Tanks until the appearance of the T-34/85 and IS -2,2/M series -the IS-3 did not see any action in the war- (again until the arrival of King Tiger but then it was already too late for the Germans). After this brief tank comparison which might be boring to some,i believe that there were a number of reasons fr the Allied victory. First of all the tendency of Hitler to intervene and alter the strategic plans of his Generals- if there is one thing that separates Stalin from Hitler is that in the critical moments he let his Generals handle the situation- leading usually in catastrophic defeats. Second one key factor that many ignore is the mechanized factor. The Soviets were able to crush the Germans when they managed to keep a substantial fraction of their troops mobile and able to follow the armored divisions. The trucks allowed this to happen ,so the tanks punched through the German lines in mass but it was also the infantry in mass and well situated that integrated and completed the Soviet victories. Victories in Stalingrad, Kursk and in Dnieper, not to mention operation Bagration were possible due to the enormous ability of the Soviets to transport huge masses of troops and armor divisions in a very short time while being unnoticed by the Germans. So the Soviets produced the planes and the tanks in huge numbers and the Americans provided the trucks (it is estimated that more than 200.000 trucks were given as help.We now have the luxury to say that the Soviets would have been able to defeat the Germans on their own. After 1943 events i will agree to that, but what about the first one and a half years? I am not so sure that without the Western help they would have endured

One more thing F-14D you are right about the number of troops in the West. Right before Operation Overlord the Germans had almost 1000 tanks and tank hunters (mainly Marders II, III and STUG-IIIs,IVs -mostly tank hunters- in France (but they did not listen to Rommel who asked for the tanks to be positioned in to small distances from the beaches in order for the allied air force not to be able to stop them from smashing the allied landing bridgeheads, a major what if of the war)). It is also correct that Normandy played a vital role in forcing the Germans to withdraw their forces from other fronts (after some period of time, mostly after Falaise) such as Northern Italy and helped the Soviets in achieving the full destruction of the German Army Group Center in the east by distracting Hitler’s attention away from the east at the critical weeks before the soviet attack.In short the combination of the effort of ALL the Allies brought the Nazi defeat. To give some credit to the Soviets though i have to admit that Operation Bagration was the single most catastrophic German defeat in the war. At the end of the battle and its aftermath (after one month) the Germans had lost 2000 tanks and tank hunters and 50.000 other vehicles more than 670.000 men dead wounded or captured and roughly 700 planes and 22 Generals.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT THE EUROFIGHTER COSTS HALF AS MUCH AS THE F22 SO TWO PLANES LACKING IN THIS STEALTH TECHNOLOGY YOU ALL SPEAK SO HIGHLY OF WOULD WIN

IT WOULDNT MATTER COZ THERE WOULD BE 2 TO 1 AND IT ALL COMES DOWN TO COST. ALSO THE UK JOINT BUILT THE F35 WITH AMERICA AND PLANS TO HAVE THERE BIGGER NEW CARRIERS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT FILLED WITH BOTH AIRCRAFT 100 EUROS ON 1 AND 100 F35S ON THE OTHER SCARY WHEN U YANKS PUT ALL YOUR FAITH IN 1 BRAND OF FIGHTER

O YEAH YOUR GENERAL THE ONLY DUDE TO FLY BOTH SAID IT WAS LIKE COMPARING A FORMULA ONE CAR TO A NASCAR AND THE EUROFIGHTER HAD THE SUPERIOR DOGFIGHTING CAPABILITY

DONT WORRY THOUGH WE WILL STILL SELL YOU SOME EUROFIGHTERS WHEN YOUR F22 BECOMES TO COSTLY AS LONG AS YOU DONT CALL IT THE LIBERTY FIGHTER OR SOME STUPID WORLD POLICING WANNABE SLOGAN LIKE THAT
HA HA YANKS 300 YEARS OF HISTORY AND THEY THINK THEY RULE THE WORLD

WOODY, you’re a dumbass, i’m sorry, there’s no other way. you think cost should decide whether a fighter’s better? the F/A-22 could easily take on two EF-2000s; if the Raptor cant be found, then how are you gonna shoot at it? i agree, stealth isn’t foolproof, it can be beaten, but still, the F/A-22 is the most advanced air superiority fighter, and in a war smart money’s on Lockheed Martin. and last i checked, the Eurofighter wasn’t navy. and the F-35? 80% overweight, carries ordnance externally, it’s really not all that it’s built up to be, though it did definitely win the JSF competition. and Brit carriers are only 77,000 tons, and they’re way late to the party. even France had supercarriers, totally ridiculous to have them in my opinion (who’s gonna attack France?), but the Royal Navy needed them years ago during the Falklands.

it’s idiots like you who chose the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aka Sewer Bug over the F-14D Super Tomcat 21. the ST21 was more capable, had longer range, greater ordnance variety and payload, speed, and survivability. any day, any way, a single F-14D ST21 concept could’ve taken on half-a-squadron of Super Hornets in dogfights, bombing, interdiction strikes, etc. and still come out on top. Pentagon was just more impressed by shiny new digital cockpit avionics in the Super Hornet. when will you people learn? when it comes to capability and giving our men and women in arms the best tools for the job, cost generally should not be an issue when comparing two “different systems, especially when one (F-14) is so much better than the other (F/A-18E/F). hell, even the original Hornet was better, they proved it.

sell us some Eurofighters”, lol…us Americans may be naive, but not stupid. “rule the world” lol

Wow. Where do I start? Eurofighter Typhoon. Designed as an interceptor and air superiority fighter. Now having an austere air to ground capability foisted on it. Is currently having a radar system tested under the CAESAR programme which will give it a radar which is possibly a LITTLE bit better than the Raptor. Typhoon strengths: extreme manoeuverability THROUGHOUT the flight envelope(yes, my colonial cousins, THAT’S how it’s spelt!), very good combat persistence (10 AAMS, 27mm Mauser cannon when fully integrated, virtually no reduction in G loadings and manoeuvering capability with full loads, excellent helmet mounted cueing system for off boresight missile launch, useful range and not terribly expensive…

Sukhoi Su-37 strengths: Combat proven basic design in the Su-27, excellent combat persistence with 12-14 AAMS depending on whether it’s using multiple ejector racks and a 30mm cannon. The excellent BARS radar system. Supermanoeuverability in lower speed and post-stall flight regimes (there is a valid combat scenario for the “cobra” in which the nose could be hauled through 90 degrees to snap off a missile), low maintenance, high reliability…

Lockheed-Martin F-22A Raptor strengths: Supercruise (it does REALLY crimp the launch envelope of an AAM), stealth, range, good manoeuvering power throughout the flight envelope. The superb AESA radar system (sadly lacking in Typhoon!).

Now the downside. I’m going to get critical. The Su-37 first. It’s too big. It’s much larger than the F-22 or the Tiffy. It’s an excellent close range and mid range fighter, but easily outmanoeuvered by the Typhoon and the F-22 close in during NORMAL WVR FLIGHT. The supermanoeuvering capability is in the post-stall flight regime, and is of limited use in war as if you’re going that slow, you’re going to get killed!

The Typhoon: It’s simply not as advanced as it should be, although it has been designed to fight in conventional wars. It needs thrust vectoring, and the shape to be smoothed out to reduce RCS. The PIRATE update took far too long to be integrated and it is lamentably still short of the 27mm Mauser cannon. Every war since WWII has proved the necessity for a gun carrying fighter aircraft. Look at the lessons of the F-4 (with missiles only in Vietnam - before the gun was fitted to later variants!) and the pounding it took in WVR engagements from gun-armed MiGs.

The F-22: It’s too big, too. Considering the amount of money the US has spent on it, I’d expect it to outmanoeuvre the Typhoon. It doesn’t. It’s combat persistence is not as good as the Tiffy and the Su with 6-8 AAMs and the 20mm M61A1 cannon. The M61A1 is a third generation gun in a fifth generation fighter. it is currently suffering from a number of problems (fatigue in the forward fuselage, corrosion and fluid leaks) and most importantly it has NO LINK16 or JTIDS link! It can only communicate with other forces by voice radio!

Now, which is the finest fighter? I hope I’ve proved that they all have unique strengths. But I would place the Su-37 third, simply because it is not quite as advanced aerodynamically as the Tiffy or the Raptor, and is generally a lot more old tech in most of it’s systems. It is a superb fighter in the main aspects of the genre though, and does have the longest combat persistence in terms of weapons carried. Second is… I really don’t know! I am dying to say the Typhoon for reasons of not seeming to be biased (I am in the Royal Air Force!) but I don’t think I can. The Raptor is more advanced aerodynamically, no doubt, but I think it has been designed for a war no longer going to happen (The ATF requirement was for a stealth aircraft to fight in a nuclear, and post nuclear war against the Soveit Union), and that the Typhoon is an aircraft better designed for the wars it will fight. Designed-in stealth is becoming obsolete (indeed both B-2s and F-22s have been tracked fairly effectively by 1970s vintage SAM-7 Gainful radar, due to both of the aircraft being designed to deflect modern radar, not older systems), and coupled with it’s current problems, I think the Raptor simply is not as combat-capable as the Typhoon, YET!

Good evening every one . AS far as the question about EF-2000 & Sukhois i agree that Eurofighter is a more modern design (afterwards it was design to deal with SU-27s and their upgraded cousins)I have some comparative figures for dog fight and air to air performances for the major fourth generation fighters. If concentrated to EF, RAFALE & SU-30MK (Indian Air Force version)the EF outmaneuvers both by 1,-1,5 degree in both instant and constant rates of turn while in acceleration the Russian is slightly better than Rafale and roughly equal to the EF-2000. The SU-30MK carries two engines capable of producing 12500 kg including after burner each. I have some other data from Russian sources however about a version of SU-37 (NOT FOR EXPORTS) with stronger engines (more than 15000 kg each)and bigger canards which were brought a bit forward in the fuselage. According to these, the situation is completely reversed by having the Russian fighter beating the EF by 1,5 to 2 degrees in constant rate of turn and acceleration in high and low altitudes and being identical to instant rate of turn (the EF due to its delta wing and its inherent unstable design (aerodynamically) is better for achieving high instant rates. In todays dog fights however i believe that it is the new missiles (together with the helmet aiming devices)like IRIS-T and new versions of R-73 the facts that will make the difference (again by Russian sources it is claimed that the latest version of archer can lock on a target up to 120 degrees /- off boresight compared to the 90 degrees of IRIS-T). Another factor is thrust vectoring and last but not least the Russian backwards aiming radar in the sting of the Sukhois (provided that it is functioning and all of these are not simply Russian advertising blah blah)so even if the EF gets behind the Su it is probable that it will be shot down as well. I have a question though, i have heard that a plane when is not moving for a second or two and when it is on a 45 or 90 degrees angle with the fighter’s radar it is not tracked by a Doppler radar because it is considered as ground reflection, is it correct? I have not be able to verify it.

i think Hotrod has made a valid (excuse me, several valid) point. I wouldn’t say the Phantoms were pounded by MiGs in Vietnam, but it does give a vivid perception. i also like his statement about vintage SAM radars being able to track modern stealthy aircraft, simply because the planes weren’t designed to combat vintage radar frequencies. he’s right, for now we’re facing an array of enemies armed from the 70’s. China, however, is a different story. and if Putin ever decides to tango, well… all i can say is the Pentagon better step up Raptor productions, chuck out the Super Hornet, and reboot the F-14D Super tomcat 21; we’re gonna need it!

and i wasn’t aware that a TVC F/A-22A was less maneuverable than a non-TVC (for now) Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon… learn something new every day…

F-22 Raptor no contest the Russians make the SU-37 look cool but its really nothing more than an SU-27 thats been upgraded sligtly to fix problems the SU-27 has. The Eurofighter seems like a decent plain but the specs on it still dont even come close to the F-15 ad the F-15 has been around forever.

As far as we know, Raptors can outmanoeuvre Typhoon above 50,000ft due to superior power to weight ratios. The thing with TVC is that it isn’t as beneficial to turn radius at combat speeds as the simulations said it would be, although there is a definite advantage in the vertical plane.

As far as my comments about the F-4, I was trying to say that it gained an internal gun when it was discovered that it’s “magic missiles” were not as capable as advertised in a WVR engagement, and that the USAF lost more Phantoms than they needed to, simply because technology itself isn’t enough to defeat a determined foe. You require a good airframe, a combination of weapons (BVR missiles, WVR missiles, internal gun) and most importantly, AN EXCELLENT PILOT!

no prob, Hotrod, we all got the point, and you’re absolutely right, the USAF, USN, and USMC needlessly lost many aircraft due to lack of guns. amazing, there are still many bozos in the DoD who want to remove guns from fighters…

GET REAL PEOPLE!!!!!!! IF YOU REALY..REALY KNOW, ABOUT FIGHTERS YOU BETER GO WITH SU37 AND SU47 IF!!!!! YOU REALY KNOW..
SORRY GUY’S BUT F14 & F22 NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the best is the Eurofighter.
Why? Well, the russians Su 30 and Su 35/37 are good planes, but they aren’t at the Eurofighter level.
The F-22? It’s a nice and modern plane (I think that the Eurofighter is ”Old School”) but it has some weakness. You say that it’s Stealth. It’s true, but I think that only bombers are good using stealth. In facts, the F-22 could have 2 real problems in a modern warfare:
1. An EMP attack. Using it, his electronic shall crash and it simply will break. The Eurofighter has not this problem.
2. If you are stealthy, you must hide your weapons. The F-22 is not as big as the B-2 so it can carry only 8 missiles. That’s not good, because they can be avoided by the agile Eurofighter. And of course, a lot of small countries have differents old fighters (a lot of MiGs) and the F-22 can’t crush all of them.
So, the Eurofighter is the best fighter.
P.S. Sorry for my English, i’m not american

Escary, it’s wrong to say that that Eurofighter has no electronic systems. It has FBW, a high-authority computerised flight control system, computerised fuel controls, digital navigation systems, as well as highly sensitive electronically controlled weapons. ALL modern military aircraft are vulnerable to EMP - it’s just that the only way to create a suitably large EMP pulse would be the detonation of a large nuclear device!

As far as Typhoon being able to avoid missiles - to a certain degree, yes, but modern missiles can pull 40g manoeuvres. Unlike Typhoon and its’ pilots, and indeed F-22s and theirs. And Su-37s for that matter. Stealth technology is not designed to hide an aircraft for ever, it’s designed to hide an aircraft long enough for it to carry out it’s mission. It doesn’t matter how radar absorbent your aircraft planform is, sooner or later someone is going to spot it with the Mark One human eyeball. The second point of stealth is to crimp in the launch envelopes of SAMs and AAMs. Again, it’s a partial thing, as the person who has just seen his missiles miss their target is more than likely sat on top of a rather large cannon that can do just as much damage without being disadvantaged with lack of detection.

Stealth has its uses, but it is not the panacea for all combat solutions, and I think that is where the USAF and the Raptor have shot themselves in the foot somewhat - remember, with increasing advances in radar and seeker head technologies, the hugely expensive F-22 will be visible soon…. I’d go as far as to say that any modern combat aircraft is obsolete as soon as it enters service, as possible enemies start to create countermeasures against it….

Although Typhoon is having it’s own troubles lately, what with landing gear difiiculties and brake chutes falling out of their housings…. Funny how we never seem to hear of problems with the supposedly old-tech Flanker, innit?

Anyways, fellas and gals-why all the speculation? As much of an aviation buff as i am i’d rather not see a scenario in which one of you is proven right. it’s not that i’m a peacemonger, it’s just that with the combined numbers AND skill of allied forces, it’s no doubt that all the coalition jets are going to kick ass. How bout those warthogs?

Planes don’t “dogfight” anymore. Thats a thing of the past. Maneuvarability is all good , but in the end it comes down to range, stealth, denial techonology etc.. which the f/22 has, among other capabilities.

military aircraft information, particularly new one is so full of bogus facts and ridiculously what we can see in Irak today is that modern war machinery, as powerful as it might seem is hardly capable of resolving any conflict. and it seems a pretty ineffective use of resources when you realize the price tag and the shitty results. 3 trillion dollars by wars end. If the same guys who made the decision to invade Irak are the guys who thought the raptor program necesaryy then the f22 is surely an overbudget unecesary plane.

now to another matter id like to adress. regarding WWII and who won it.

Its easy to say “USA won the war.. bla bla bla “.. “if it wasnt for us bla bla bla”

there is some truth to those statement but not complete truths. here are some points id like to write down

1. The war wasnt fought on american soil. the closest it got was pearl harbour, and that in itself was an attack on a military instalation thousaqnds of miles from continental USA. and that was an isolated incident. Im sure that helped. America could keep churning planes, boats, tanks and soldiers, as no one was getting killed and no factories or homes being destroyed back home.

2. america didnt fight in 2 fronts. it fought on two campaigns. the European and the Pacific. Germany fought on two fronts. there is a big difference with the concept of front and campaign. Still it is a remarkable achievement. Probably made possible by Point 1.

3. Just as in WWI america didnt go into the war until it was well on its way. Fresh troops, fresh weapons, fresh everything. Im sure it helps too.

3. The European campaign, or theatre of operations, was not won by the americans. it was won by the Allies. The US were a big part of the western front, maybe the biggest part although that is debatable. On the other hand, the Russians turned back the tide on the eastern front all on their own. It was them that captured Berlin, and rightly so. if they hadnt held back in stalingrad, if the germans would have taken the oilfields, the war would have taken a very different course. With or without the americans. Saying the russian winter is what won the eastern fton fo them is simplistic. Its like saying americas size and natural resources won the war for them. Its somehow true, but there is so much more.

Ive read these argument regarding who won WWII and WWI so many times and find most of the arguments are ignorant to say the least. war on a massive scale can only be resolved by use of nuclear weapons or negotiations, the first option being unacceptable to all and the second being unacceptable to the military industrial lobbysts who have the USA BY THE BALLS.

If the announcement came that the Russians had launched a fleet of SU’s armed with nuclear-tipped missiles to attack either the USA or Europe would you relax and say “don’t worry, we have the F22 or the Eurofighter to take care of business” or would you be afraid? Similarly,if either the F22 or Eurofighter was on course for Russia with nuclear tipped missiles, could they sit back smug in the knowledge that they had superior SU’s to handle the challenge? I doubt it. Bismarck sunk Hood, arguably the most powerful warship then afloat. How long did Bismarck then keep the title? Wars depend on men,machinery,opportunity and good luck in equal measure. Every left has a right, every up a down which is the only way we can make any comparison. These are all terribly fantastic machines.

a lot of good and bad points have been made while i was gone. a lot of you in the beginning touched on the observation that stealth isn’t the end-all the air force pumps it up to be, which is absolutely correct. though a great force equalizer, stealth alone is not enough to make any one plane better than others. as to what Presto Airman said, the F/A-22 does come close, as does the Eurofighter. they’re all damn close, damn good fighters, people! the F/A-22 will kill in Air-to-air, the Su-37 is the best multi-role wise, and the Eurofighter is a good less-cost option that can do a lot of what the other two can. word on the street is they’re giving it TV, too. and an F-14 Super Tomcat 21 would kick ass, no question.

at least Escary explained why he thnks like he does.

good point, jc, we all need to be reminded occasionally.

Mikael, i fail to see how, if the two “campaigns” are over 5,000 km apart, how they do not constitute “fronts”. if you look up “front” on www.m-e.com, you’ll see that front means “a zone of conflict”. explain to me exactly WHY the Pacific and European Theatres aren’t “zones of conflict”. and the war was technically fought on American soil; numerous espionage atempts, as well as bomb runs made by weather balloons and fighters; they found A6M fighters crashed in the Aleutians and on Oahu, plus after the war a sunday school group in Oregon found an unexploded Japanese weather balloon bomb in a forest during a picnic and bam no more sunday school class. and whoever denied that WW2 was a team effort? i myself have argued that it took all involved nations to createthe outcome. and Iraq, as all competent observers can conclude, is NOT a war, but an OCCUPATION. dont you people get it? we won the war, we killed the Republican Guards in one of the fastest offensives in history, but we’re losing what almost every single armed force has lost for centuries, and that is a pacifying occupation.

J, you’re an idiot, of course dogfighting is NOT a thing of the past. it’s still necessary. ever heard of Vietnam? and dont give me that “40 years ago” shit, idiots like you made the same arguments and as a result our guys got pummelled for lack of a gun. in a major war, there will be dogfights over the battlefield, and in gthe end the guy with the best turning best shooting toy will come out on top. and airshows can demonstrate exactly what a plane is capable of in the three-dimensional arena.

Ed, Bismarck was the most powerful battlewagon afloat, until Yamato and Muashi, at least, while Hood was an old, lightly armored battle cruiser. who’d you expect to win? otherwise, you make good points.

*yawn*
I knew I’d come crawling back to my really family (smiles all around). You guys heard anything more about the F-35? Read somewhere they were working on a laser cannon for it…sheesh. That and the Russians are working on a reverse fired variant of the deadly R-73 “Archer”. Do you guys remembered the good old days? When planes flew in ONE direction (Su-37…sheesh) and could actually be seen by radar (F-22…no news on the Su-47?)? Seriously loving the Su-34 the more I look at it. Side-by-side cockpit must be great for working in and advanced avionics are seriously making up for the tech-lag Russia has felt for a long time.

As always, PLEASE send Australia some Su-30s. This is like when Goering asked Adolf Galland (famous German Ace of WW2) what he needed to beat the brittish. “A squadron of spitfire.” Hmmm…not liking the Super Hornet…

Going back to the original question “which is the best” do we think “which is the best plane” or “which is the best fighter”?

Tell you what, I’d hate to be dogfighting an Su-30, BVRing an F-22 (where’d he go!?) or trying to shoot down a Eurofighter with a sam (more hardpoints for HARM like missiles). Still, I reckon a stealthy version of the Su-30 is the go. If I hear anything on PAK-FA or the Su-47 I’ll give you guys a bell. Good hunting Comrades.

The Su-47 lacks thrust vectoring but is stealthy. But then the most important thing is that the Su-30 is up and running whilst the Su-47 is still a prototype. The Su-30 sounds liks a more practical option, but if I was going to be snapping with an F-22 I’d want the Su-47. Hmmm… or possibly a couple more wingman (economically speaking) with the Su-30. I just wish we had more information on just how stealthy the Raptor is. If its as good as the USAF is saying then they’re laughing, the F-22 shows a clear advantage. But then if its a bit dodgy or inneffective then the Su-30 might be superior. I dunno, don’t have the info and the data on the AIM-120C-7 and the possible AIM-120D Slammer series missiles (those equipped to the F-22) may well patch up the missile range issue with the Raptor.
I guess stealth is more important than I’ve previously though, though I stand by my belief that other characteristics like a dogfighting capability, performance and effective BVR capability are also very important if not more so.

Just been reading about the A-12 “avenger”. Sounds just the shot for the Navy and perhaps even the airforce. Not sure how to make a “flying dorito” stealthy but the concept is good and I bet you could hold plenty of fuel and weapons in that frame.

I think the AIM-120 might (emphasis: might) be good enough to fill the ALRAAM role though they aren’t saying much about range or anything.
The Su-37 and the Su-30 are not really comparable simply because one is a technology demonstrator and the other is a combat aircraft. The Su-30MKI (that’s the Indian one with improved avionics) has canards, Thrust vectoring and fully integrated fly-by-wire which would give the MKI performance roughly similar to the Su-37 (might lose a bit on the two-seat config.)

I think another thing the F-22 (and other supercruising craft) has up its sleeve is the extended range of its missile under a high-altitude and speed situation. An AMRAAM flies alot further at a higher speed and altidude. If we remember this and the supposedly longer-ranged AIM-120D (or maybe even and AIM-120C-7) might be able to defeat the R-77. Good thing the Raptor has stealth but even so I think it needs a longer-ranged missile. *cough-phoenix-cough*

Hello again i have been away for some time and from what i see there are many interesting topics to discuss. Alex about the Phoenix missile i am afraid that it is not the appropriate weapon. Although it possess a theoretical range of up to 200 khm, it needs radar beaming from the fighter for the 80% of the distance (until its own radar takes over the action) so you can kiss the stealth element goodbye. The only combination would be a beaming (through a data link) from an E-3 Sentry, in order for the F-22 to have its radar OFF. To me the ideal solution would be an Infra Red Ramjet Missile ,lets say something like a IR METEOR. I believe that EF-2000 is not such a modern plane design ( do not forget that EFA its predecessor traces its origins back in the eighties) of course during the past two decades many things learnt the hard way have been or must have been incorporated in the design of the aircraft itself. EF-2000 is the most promising European fighter but lets face it, it has incorporated design elements that the French have been using at least twenty years earlier (delta wing and canards Mirage IIIs with very small canards at least the final editions and their improved cousins the Israeli Kfirs, Mirage 2000 (only delta wing).Of course EF is a much more capable fighter which incorporates many important fighting characteristics most note worthy the extremely sophisticated FBW system which allows it to take advantage of the potential of its inherent unstable design (this element lacked from the French Fighters).It would be very interesting to see how Rafale would fair with stronger engines.
Another comment about the dog fighting strategies, yes it is true that going extremely slow in a dog fight will eventually get you killed (even if you manage to beat one opponent you will be a sitting duck for the next one), but this is only the one side of the coin.The most important things in a dogfight are energy (thrust) reserves and the ability to make rapid and steep changes in both speed and turn rates. This is where the Su super maneuverability (incredible AoA figures) comes in to effect, any other plane (without TVC) would fall in to a stall after a very violent turn (with the following speed loss). A normal plane would make a barrel roll ( rising the nose up -pitch- and simultaneously make a roll to the right or to the left to exchange speed for altitude, gains altitude reduces speed and making the turn tighter) in order to avoid cutting its speed to dangerous levels but this would (with a great probability)cause it to step in front of the Sukhoi and in to a very unfavorable position. Let us not forget also that we must take the figures given by the companies with extra caution because they have everything to gain by making their plane look better. I think that (thank God) we will never know for sure the exact performances of the each plane.

true, Alex, the Super Flanker is a demonstrator, but demonstrators sometimes eventually pass on to production combat aircraft. anyone remember the X-31, that German-American test aircraft designed to test canards and TVC for improved AoA performance? anyone see the similarities between it and the EF-2000? in not, look them both up online, and compare the images. and remember that a European agency was involved. besides, Sukhoi’s been looking for buyers of its Su-35s and 37s.

as to a reborn Phoenix (no pun intended) missile, we shouldn’t be looking at the AIM-54 of the past, but at how the Phoenix could be improved so as to make it suitable for current and future use. the Phoenix was built in the ’70s, almost four decades ago. imagine all the improvements we could incorporate into a new-build AIM-54E. we could probably improve range (fuel economy and gas tank), size and weight (even the F-14B and D had a hard time slugging around six Phoenixes), terminal performance (maneuvering), etc. the AMRAAM was never a long-range missile, and was never acknowledged as such.

another thing we must remember is that, unlike in previous wars, aerial battles will usually be fought at long range and/or at low altitude. targets will be low and fast, and as such harder to kill. so we shouldn’t just be concentrating on the high level furball, but also the low-level engagements where missiles and planes will be harder pressed to kill each other.

F22 RULES your pitting two minors up against the most baddass air supiriority fighter in the world,and besides the raptor has fire and forget missiles wich means it would fire and forget about the two smoking holes in the ground!

oh yak remember almost everything the russians have ever built have been deathtraps ie T-72 tank or the bear bomber the dam thing was so loud it could be heard by American submarines that were meant to track ships about a hundred metres above them!And as for good old Europe I am certain that America’s greatest raptor would prevail

I will say this, the russians fought long and hard against the germans and under harsh conditions, especially at stalingrad so I very much respect them for that. For all the people that are fighting and all the ones who died in the pastin the name of freedom and justice,thank you,we will remember you forever, my prayers are with you.

Well, there is a lot of emotional appeal in this forum and not a whole lot of facts. I think that the COPE exercises with India were an excellent idea and I think such things should be done more often esp with the F22 and later with the F35. Having said that Americans do tend to be overconfident and bigheadeded about things. We could use an attitude adjustment every now and then and thats why I think events like the COPE events with India are a good exercise. I don’t know about the interpretation of data from EWACS. However, I have been to India and met college students there and business people in Bangalore. I can tell you that they kick our balls on Math and Science. They are very smart and should be respected for that. If we want to compete in this shifting world economy then we need to be brighter mathematicians and scientists. What is wrong with that? Its hard? So be it! I am not Anti-American I am simply stating facts. As for which fighter is the best or the worst well I think that would depend on the situation and the pilot and their training. The F22 is quite advanced. However, I think in close range combat that the EF2000 would give it a run for its money and the SU 37 would have a decisive advantage. Hopefully, the F22’s stealth and BVR is enough to give it the edge and probably does. However, Red Flag is an american exercise and that is a limitation that should be considered. For a real test the F22 with american pilots needs to be sent up against real exercises with foreign Air Forces.

F22DUDE, you’re a naive ignorant stereotypical american, unfortunately. true, Russian hardware was composed of deathtraps… forty years ago! nowadays, they have T-90s, T-84s, Sierra and Akula-class subs… the list goes on. and the Raptor isn’t the only one with fire-and-forget, shoot-and-scoot missiles; in fact, the Russian R-77 has almost twice the range of the American AIM-120 AMRAAM. so actually the Raptor is more likely to get smoked.

Just a quick one @ LordBill: You are quite right, the EFA programme was started in the 1980s. Typhoon however, as a programme was a 90s baby. EFA was the programme involving France that was scratched. However the F-22 Raptor (or the preliminary ATF programme, I should say…) was begun in 1987. Making Raptor an 80s aircraft as well. As far as rubbishing Typhoon as a glorified Mirage, is that what the Indians are doing with the Tejas? Or what MiG were attempting with the 1.44? They are a delta and a canard delta respectively. Delta wings reduce the thickness/chord ratio, have a large amount of useable volume in them, are very strong, confer low supersonic drag and increase manoeuverability at high altitude. Typhoon is an optimised air superiority fighter, with a layout optimised for the mission. The canards on export Mirages/Nammers/Daggers/Cheetahs/Panteras/Kfirs were fixed and simply to reduce landing speeds and improve low speed handling characteristics. Whereas the Typhoon’s canards move to enhance manoeuverability beyond even the ability it had with relaxed stability and a delta. And they have a long moment arm to increase their effectiveness still further. Sorry for the lecture…

not a whole lot of facts?! i guarantee you, mister, that every single thing I’VE said (which makes up a good third of this entire forum; you might say I’m obsessed lol) is verifiable FACT! but you are correct; Americans (I am one, and i try to avoid epitomizing the stereotype) tend to be jingoistic, ignorant, uber-patriotic to the point of xenophobia, and stupid (Bush was elected for TWO terms!). and unfortunately, i don’t have much hope for the rising gene pool. being a teen, i see examples and results of the aforementioned conditions of stereotypical Americans everywhere.

otherwise, you’re right, any multi-national realistic competitive exercise is a good thing. AWACS is proven to increase the efficiency and success of intercepts; American pilots are trained to rely on AWACS because it makes them perform better.

as to Red Flag being just an American exercise, the comments of American (and other coalition) pilots puts that to rest. many acknowledge that the exercises are more difficult than actual combat!

and here’s my take on the topic that started all this, the F/A-22 vs. EF-2000 vs. SU-37:

the F/A-22 is the best at BVR and medium range; it’s stealth, radar, and missiles guarantee that. closer in, the Eurofighter may have more of an advantage with canards and soon-to-be-added TVC. the Su-37 is probably similar to the EF-2000 in that respect. however the Super Flanker qualifies as the best in the multi-role category, by far the most important.

Hello every one, Hotrod i am with you 100% (especially in the technical details about Delta wings and canards)My point was although somewhat, blurry to point out that the design concept is quite “old”. All those nice stuff about delta wings and canards (Delta wings reduce the thickness/chord ratio,delta wings lead to a larger wing surface and to a lower wing loading figure, a great thing for extremely tight turns and instant rate of turn , have a large amount of useable volume in them -more fuel for the same volume, are very strong, confer low supersonic drag and increase manoeuverability at high altitudewere)were known for decades. The major problem was to incorporate a sophisticated enough fly by wire system in the aircraft in order to transform its disadvantage (inherent instability) which led to many minor accidents with the Eurofighter, to a huge advantage (when all problems will be dealt with)My point is that 20-25 years ago aircraft manufacturers did not poses the technology level to make those electronic systems, so the airplane it self would not be so much efficient (not even close). In deed though as i read my piece again it seems like i presented the EF as a super Mirage (ok this is not fair for the EF) THIS WAS NOT INTENDED.Imagine the complexity of the mathematics and programming demands for making a plane that should not be flying ( an unstable aircraft can not stay in the air for long without the FBW let alone dog fight) to the excellent dog fighter we see today. Now if we compare EF with the other two i believe that at high speeds and altitudes the F-22 is better (due to its stronger engines- at least until EF gets stronger engines). In the middle zone i believe it is the EF winning the day whereas in low speeds and altitudes ( near the stall speeds) the Sukhoi has no match among them. As i clearly pointed out each aircraft is better in a different part of the flight envelope so we have two key words i) TRAINING ii)TACTICS

No need to apologise, LordBill! We are (I think!) having a friendly discussion about the relative merits of the latest generation of fighter aircraft. However, to say the design concept of the Tiffy is old I think is incorrect. You could say that all aircraft planforms are old-tech insofar as they all have been tried before - Variable geometry for example (like F-14s Rock beloved Tomcats!) was first tried on the Westland Pterodactyl in around 1938. All right, the degree of sweep was only 4.75deg but it still counts! Tailless deltas were in existence before the Mirage was a twinkle in Marcel Dassualt’s eye (I’m thinking of the XF2Y Convair Sea Dart here) not to mention the F-102 Delta Dagger, UAVs (The remotely piloted Mistel combinations in WWII), even stealth isn’t a new concept… witness the A-12 [Project Oxcart] and the Flying Pancake. There were even stealth tweaks on Ju 87 Stukas in the Second World War! (Exhaust flash eliminators, reduced visibility markings and matt black light absorbent paint) Like I said in a previous post, all brand new combat aircraft are obsolete as soon as an opposing power sees them for the first time, as the first thing an opposing power does with a new technology is develop a countermeasure to it. It’s the same with all combat equipment, even the most heavily armoured tank in the world has now had it’s armour breached by an IED. Jamming technology increases the research into counterjamming, stealth breeds counter-stealth. It’s how technology evolves. Here’s an analogy for you about how technology evolves. At the height of the Cold War, it would have taken on average 17 Jaguar aircraft attacking with iron bombs to eliminate one Soviet tank. Today, one Tornado GR4A can simultaeneously eliminate 12 tanks with a full complement of Brimstone missiles. Sorry for rambling slightly, but I am just a random train of thought chap!

It was before the advent of guided munitions like Paveway in the Cold War, F-14s Rock. Strike missions in the Cold War in the 70s were all about sortie generation, and it took on average the equivalent of 17 aircraft sorties to kill one tank. I should have made myself more clear…

i know, Hotrod, but why not unguided rockets instead of wasting iron bombs? besides, in a war you would hardly target 17 planes against a single tank, that’s ridiculous. much better to find an armor column.

it’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning, F22DUDE. good to see there are more of us.

I agree too, all these aircraft represent the current state of the art and it’s wonderful what they can achieve. F-14s Rock, I can’t answer your question. Perhaps it was something to do with 1960s RAF doctrine, but I was quoting the statistic to make my point about how tremendous weapon capability is after only 40 years!

in that respect, you are absolutely right. LGBs, satellite imagery, the list goes on. now if only they could come up with a satellite-guided missile; THAT would be a war-winner, we’re talking battles fought over continent-size distances. of course, fuel and size might be a problem…

i am no expert but saying that the F-22 has better thrust stats that would be my choice. the f-22 can pretty much stand still in the air and fire while the Su-37 is trying to dance around and do those air show tricks you see in the youtube videos. F-22

they’re pretty close, but the Raptor is lighter and the Flanker has less thrust available. but in the end, it comes down to pilot skill, training, and luck of the draw (literally, whoever draws first).

that is true who ever draws first will proly kill. but lets say both the su-37 and f-22 come in 900-1000 yards of of eatcholer and ity becomes like a dogfight i think the su-37 will domanate the f-22 it couldnt ovuisaly fly circles arond the f-22 but its better enought to get ont the f-22`s 6`olck and take it down. ya stealth is good n all but wat if u get seen then wat u have nothing to help u out but skill(with the amarcians defentaly have)but u would have to dame good to be able to fly the su-37 so really….

Remember when the F-15 came out? No? Neither can I but seriously the F-15 was made out to be invincible. Which it effectively was for the first few years. Then along come the Flankers, Foxhounds and Fulcrums. Eagles are hard pressed killing them (I know the Gulf War said different but then the Gulf War was a very uneven battle and no Su-27s) now as has been proved over in India.
Now I’m sure if an F-22 went up against a MiG-29/Su-27 and his stealth remained in full effect, Russia would be needing a new plane, pilot and set of undies.
!!HOWEVER!! If that Stealth goes for some reason (weather conditions, radar advances, luck…) the Raptor is at a severe disadvantage. F-14 Rock is right, we need a new missile, the old Phoenix is not up to the job. We need a missile with similar range, better accuracy and longer autonomous stage.

In any fight, the one who cannot be seen wins. Forget the statistics and crap like that. You cannot beat what you cannot see. Period. If you don’t believe me, try shooting a guy in the dark who’s got night vision. I know who I have my money on. Everyone here is trying to argue the wrong point. Bottom line is let’s see these planes ACTUALLY go up against one another. I live in Nevada and actually know F-22 pilots. They have told me of “mock skirmishes” against other planes, including the vaunted Su-37. Maybe they are biased, but knowing these men, everyone says that they smoked their competition. Maybe it’s the training indeed. But when you have something that is SO far advanced technologically, you have a huge advantage. The Russians rely on brute force, the Eurofighter is a JOKE. Stealth and agility will always win dogfights. ALWAYS. Training Tactics Superior Technology = WIN EVERYTIME. For those of you who doubt this plane, put your money where your mouth is…we’ll just have to see when the F-22 goes against its competition. Then just remember, “I told you so!”

acceptance-_hotmail, you just shot down your argument: you say the Su-37 is heavier, and I am currently looking at a bunch of stats effectively stating that the F-22’s F-119 engines each give 5,000 lbs more thrust than the Super Flanker’s AL-37s. which means the F-22 weighs less, and has more power. add in TVC and a highly maneuverable design, which both aircraft have, and the F-22 comes out on top in terms of thrust-to-weight. but i thought we settled a long time ago that they’re all great planes, let’s quit bickering about it.

hi, Alex Ryan, long time no see. thought you’d left for good, glad to see I’m wrong ^_^ and glad to see your reasoning is as sound as ever

Point is Missed proved his namesake, lol… I have never heard of dogfights between Raptors and Flankers, I think it would’ve become public knowledge pretty quickly around here. statistics are important, but you’re right, not the deciding factor in a knifefight. however, the F-22 can only carry, like, eight missiles, and once it fires it gives away its position (I don’t think open doors are very good for stealth). and once a lucky Ruskie gets IR lock with his AA-11 Archer, bye-bye Raptor (next-gen AIM-9 and AA-11 missiles are almost impossible to evade). and the F-22 will be useless in the multi-role area unless it uses wing pylons, which totally negates stealth. then the American becomes a big black fireball. and are we so different from the Russians? tell me brute force is not part of the American Armed Forces, i dare ya. and the EF-2000 is not a joke, it has canards and systems and is getting TVC. it only lack stealth.

The Raptor has not exercised with any other aircraft apart from USAF and USN ones. And
F-14s Rock is quite right, the Raptor’s payload is too small to be of much use apart from the odd sneak attack or point defence work. The reason the Typhoon is not stealthy by design is simple. It’s a difference in tactical doctrine. The Tiffy carries it’s own countermeasures and DASS and does not have to rely on designed in stealth as such, and neither does it have to rely on dedicated ECM platforms like the EA-18G or the EA-6B. Not to say that Raptor is useless. It isn’t. It is the most advanced fighter in the world and tremendously capable (to an outmoded requirement ie: the ATF programme) but is it the best? I don’t think so, personally. The new Su-35-1 variant with even more power and relaxed stability looks rather capable to me. And when the Typhoon gets the CAESAR radar upgrade, full integration of the 27mm Mauser cannon (an appalling travesty, this should have been the first weapon system integrated!) and the 3-D TVC nozzles promised, I think you are looking at the world’s premier close range fighter…

between Hotrod and Alex Ryan, (and Lordbill, if he ever shows up again), we’re pretty well covered
Tiffy, lol, wonder who came up with that; guaranteed it wasn’t ground pounders. but as to outmoded requirement, an air-superiority fighter is still necessary, it just has to be able to carry more baggage, like a Mud Hen. imagine if a bunch of F-15Es flew a mission into airspace dominated by Raptors… not pretty. and the Air Force technically views the term “tactical fighter” to include strike aircraft (hell, they called the A-10 a fighter just to save funds)

Good evening every one i have been away for a couple of weeks and from what i have seen we have pretty much covered the issue of the three major competitors. And dear F-14Rock yes you are wright it is all about politics and business. I will use two relatively old examples. First if we have a look in the Sherman Tank of the WW2 we can see that it was a fairly decent tank. As the war progressed though it became increasingly under gunned, over matched and got pounded hard by the German splendid big cats (Tigers and Panthers.)It was apparent to all the US and British Troops who manned them that the Sherman was a deathtrap in case of going face to face against a Tiger or a Panther (or even worse the King Tiger), this action was the equivalent of suicide.The Sherman’s 75 mm gun was useless even at point blanc against the frontal armor of the German tanks whereas the 76 mm gun faired a little better (unless it had thew HVAP tungsten round which was in short supply-it was kept for the tank hunters,then it was a fearsome enemy). Any way back to our subject, US Army Ordnance decided that since the basic design was good, the fact that the western front would be flooded by thousands of Shermans , good was good enough. A very stupid point of view if you ask me (thousands American tankers died because their Politicians and high ranking officers who had no experience of the front refused to acknowledge that their tanks were woefully inferior, and do something about it.The British did something about it, they took the Sherman V and they incorporated the 17 pdr excellent canon ( it was almost equal to the 75mm KWK42/L70 of the Panthers) making the Fireflys. It would be better for the GIs to have 1000 Pershings than 2000 Shermans
My second example concerns the best heavy bomber ever built according to my humble opinion and the reasons why it never became part of the USAF. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE AMAZING XB-70 VALKYRIE of the 3 Mach top speed the amazing altitudes it could reach and a set of performances which would make the best heavy bombers of even today look like toys. A MISSILE fired by the XB 70 AT 70000 FEET AT 3.2MACH would have a radius of more than 1000 km. If you considered that this performance was achieved in the mid sixties than you will realize the potential that this Bomber had. The infamous Mr MCNAMARA claimed that this plane was not going to manage to pierce the Soviet AA Defence system and that the only way to do this was the nuclear ballistic missiles, so USA should concentrate on these and cancel the bomber. Of course this was rubbish since the XB -70 WAS TOTALLY UNSTOPPABLE BY THE SYSTEMS AND PLANES OF THAT ERA. The Valkyrie IS A BETTER DESIGN THAN MOST MODERN HEAVY BOMBERS (LIKE B-52, B-1B, TU-160,TU-95 i left only the B-2 out due to the Stealth element)AND EVEN BY TODAY’S STANDARDS AND WITH NEW AVIONICS AND ELECTRONICS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO INTERCEPT (THOUGH TODAY THIS PLANE WOULD NOT BE INVINCIBLE). Mr MCNANAMARA had shares in the companies which were trying to get Governmental approval for their ballistic missiles programs.So he just eliminated the competition (XB-70)

welcome back, Lordbill, i guess it’s a gathering of the old warbirds here. i like the Valkyrie too, and with today’s missile performance the aircraft would make a hell of an untouchable stand-off bomber. yeah, McNamara and his Whiz Kids screwed up a lot, notably on the F-111B “Missileer”. anyone remember that? of course not, the thing was a sow, overweight, big, underpowered dog. i wouldn’t say the Valkyrie is better designed than the B-1B and Tu-160; those birds have swing-wings, impressive bomb-bays and speed, and terrain-following suites. but the B-2 is something else; once you find it (and the B-2 is NOT totally invisible; it can be found, especially by low-frequency WW2-era radars; the British proved this during Desert Storm), it’s a duck in a fox den (fish in a barrel is technically impossible, since it’s difficult to shoot the fish). the XB-70 would’ve gone a long way; it’s sad it was stopped. this great airplane lives on in modern day flight simulators like FSX; I personally have flown it as an add-on, and it is one of the more fun things you can do with your pants on.

Mark, if you had taken the time to read any of the above articles, you would learn that we have successfully concluded time and time again that stealth is NOT the end-all everyone builds it up to be. and the Raptor, if it ever goes into a fight, will be outnumbered so that eventually somebody will get lucky. it only carries eight missiles, you know. so Raptor will kill, and be killed… and lose. i rest my case.

oh, and good point on the tanks, the Sherman was versatile, but undergunned, which is why the Israelis built Super Shermans (100mm gun). the King Tiger was awesome, but slow, the JS-1,2,3 were all good, but a tad heavy, and the T-34 was best all-round; undergunned, but mass-produced, fast, good armor and design from Christie protoypes. politics; Democracy’s great paradox; we cant live with it, we cant live without it. and men and women in uniform die and suffer as a result. but we do what we can.

I just started rereading Brad Thor’s “State of the Union”, great novel, and in the first few dedication pages i found something that really struck home:

“Cuctando regitir mundis” - Waiting, we shall conquer.

makes you really scared of the threat (both military and economical) from China, et al.

We had a very similar problem like the XB-70 programme in the UK with the TSR2 programme. It was an absolute world beater in every respect and would still have been in service today, but it was killed by very short sighted politicians. It had guaranteed foreign sales to Australia, and New Zealand with Germany and even the US interested. It was the finest tactical strike aircraft ever devised. Like the Valkyrie was the ultimate bomber. I hate politicians.

i hesitate to call the TSR.2 the best “tactical strike aircraft ever devised”, but it was still a very fine bird, i liked it, and very true, it, like the XB-70, didn’t deserve to die. it’s always the politicians… but i suppose, at the end of the day, when you’re handed a budget proposal with a thousand vital items and told to cut four hundred, how do you choose? what do you choose? this is why we need smart spending in government, every government, worldwide.

good to see, F22DUDE, need more smart people in the world, especially at times like these

can anyone explain to me why governments are vigorously pursuing defense cuts when the Russian Bear is stirring and the Chinese Dragon is growing? and the US totally screwed up North Korea, we should’ve played nice a long time ago, or gotten our act together and pressured the sunuvaguns into submission, not stupid half-measures. i don’t believe they ever compensated us for Pueblo, either. and Iran is a belligerent that deserves invasion, although we don’t half the right to invade sovereign nations, even if it would suit us.

The flanker may be the most manuverable(but keep in mind what’s good for airshows isn’t necessarily good for combat), but the F-22 is my pick for a total package. Besides, the missiles now are so manuverable that the plane doesn’t have to be. What would you pick? An old Phantom with new radar and AMRAAMs, or a new flanker trying to manuver in for a close range kill? And with helmet-sight aiming for the dogfight missiles with 90 percent kill probability, dogfighting is suicidal, anyway. BVR kills are the way to go and the other planes will be taken out b4 they even see the Raptor, especially when working in conjunction with an AWACS.

Another point that I’ve not seen mentioned is numbers. The main selling point of the Russian planes is maneuverability. They have it, no question about that. And they also have BVR capability. But lets be realistic. We have thousands of f-16/f-15/f-18s in addition to the stealth planes. Most if not all are armed with BVR missiles. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DOGFIGHT. Besides, who has enough of the new Russian fighters to matter? Even the Russians don’t. When the last of those super-maneuverable Russian fightes ever made is shot down, we will still have thousands of planes left. Since the Viet-Nam war, how many American made planes have been lost to Russian models? Now ask the opposite. When real-world scenarios are applied and recent events are examined, the F-22 and American air power in general rule the world technically, tactically, and numerically. When I say numerically, I mean current and new generation fighters. Not ancients like the mig-21/19. A lot of countries still have those older planes in their active inventories. especially China and Eastern Europe(all NATO now, anyway) But then again, I guess we can count Phantoms and Skyhawks..lol

gibbs, idk how else to say this, you’re wrong. and i’m sure i’m not the only one who says this. as has been concluded before, the Raptor can’t carry that much ordnance, and is essentially a one-trick pony. so once all the AMRAAMs are gone, the Raptor driver had better know ACM, because that’s how he’s gonna fight from then on. Vietnam proved that BVR is not the only future. and the gun is multi-purpose, a dogfighting weapon and a strafing gun. and who said the Flanker couldn’t dodge AMRAAMs; modern Russian long-range missiles tend to have better performance than their Western counterparts.

and as to MiG-21s, the upgraded variants are as capable as front-line Cold War-era fighters like the F-15C, so that “older plane” comment is bullshit. America is NOT is a position to win a war anytime soon.

f14s rock
the definition of a loser in usa is self evident. $$$$
so don’t get on your high horse about tyler and my resposite: i guess u know what what this means…
the usaf lost to MiG21s. Not Su30 mki phase 3s
my kids have grown up here and fought in Desert Storm x2
Heaven forbid we screw around with REAL countries like Russia, China and India!
Our mathematically challenged pilots are nothing short of “challenged”.

not all of our pilots are “mathematically challenged”, just like not all Chinese, Russian, and Indian pilots are capable fliers. i seem to remember that Indian pilots were actually inferior to their Pakistani counterparts. as to the USAF losing to MiGs, we’ve discussed that, and satisfactorily concluded that current-generation-capable MiG-21s would actually have similar combat characteristics to late Cold War-era fighters like the F-15. besides, the F-15 is a big, bulky, easily visible fighter; the Fishbed is tiny, hard to see, and, compared to the Eagle, highly maneuverable. plus American pilots are trained to be coordinated by AWACS, something lacking from COPE India, I seem to recall. this may lead to ignorant assholes claiming that Indian pilots are more independent and therefore more capable. but exercises have proven time and again that in air combat the side with effective AWACS will have a decisive advantage. so give the Eagles a Hummer, they’ll win every time. and actually send them against similar-sized aircraft, and the Americans would perform much better, guaranteed.

anoop, you continue to bring up old, long-concluded issues; please come up with some new material

F-14s Rock, while your points in the last post were valid, I should point out that the Indian Air Force have procured five Beriev A-50s, which as you know are based on the Ilyushin Il-76 airframe (once speculatively known as the SUAWACS), of which two are having the final electronic equipment fitted after completing their first check flights. They are replacing the Il-38 based Sea Dragon arrays, I think… Hmm… India’s coming up, what with the Su-30MKI, the Berievs, the INS Vikramaditya (the old Soviet Admiral Gorshkov carrier refitted and upgraded!) equipped with a wing of MiG-29Ks and the Il-78 Midas tanker fleet…

f14
the fact that u claim the tomcat “rocks” makes me wince.
the best of the best here go into medicine, law etc. Not the forces.
BIG bucks. Got it?
Even my Residents (highly qualified post grads) cannot mentally work out simple math probs: drug doses etc.
that makes me wince - in pain.
your pilots are from a much poorer and intelectually inferior.
It does not matter what the loss rate is : only did the forces ACHIEVE their objectives.
And, the indians WON in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999.
So do read!!!
Chuck Yeager’s personal stallion was destroyed by the IAF. Whoops. If that icon of the usaf did not train the pakis to win over india: oops!!!
In 1971 we created a new country from pakistan: it’s called Bangladesh: the size of Texas +. IN 14 DAYS.
we wiped out the PAf in 48 hrs.
So,like more uninformed dumb youngsters that seem to thrive here, READ DUMBO.

the video does not show all capabilities of the F-22, the Cobra maneuver, when the aircraft pulls its nose up, stops completely and keeps going, is not even shown in the video, you can’t see IECA radar(disable airborne missiles), the fact that on radar the F-22(compared to the SU-37 looking like a friggin aircraft carrier) looks like a dragon fly, no other plane in the world has super cruise, and to the person who said it does not carry a lot of missiles, 4XAIM-9x(new), 6xAIM-120Ds, and lets not forget that you can still put six more missiles on pylons connected to the wings, a 20mm canon. I choose the F-22, every time. It isn’t the best to see at air shows, but what makes it a 5th gen. fighter is the fact you can’t see it. The only Russian aircraft that is stealth is the SU-47, and they only have one prototype. Russia is not a threat if we can see them, and they can’t see us.

Jon, please have the correct facts to hand…The Typhoon and the Su-30MKI, Su-35 and Su-37 all have supercruise capability… in fact, the first recorded instance of supercruise was the English Electric P1.A Lightning prototype piloted by Bee Beaumont in the 1950s/1960s, which exceeded Mach 1.1 in level flight powered by two unaugmented Sapphire engines. Not to mention the Lightning had the world’s first HUD, and the Red Top missiles it carried later in it’s life were the first ever all-aspect capable AAMs. And it was the only aircraft ever to intercept a U-2 Dragon Lady (Intercepted it at 88,000ft!) For stealth capability to be retained, the Raptor’s maximum weapon load is 2xAIM-9 expelled on horizontal trapezes in weapon bays above the air intakes, and FOUR AIM-120s in a ventral weapon bay, expelled pneumatically and the 3rd generation M61A3 20mm Vulcan cannon. It can carry more weapons, but it’s stealth is degraded to the point of being useless if it carries underwing pylons (Lovely big right angles for the radar waves to reflect off!). Flankers and Raptors both carry a superior warload to the Raptor. Sukhois can carry up to 14 AAMs and Typhoon up to 10, with a 30mm and 27mm cannon respectively. So, the Raptor is outgunned and has a worse combat persistence than the Russki or the European aircraft. Raptor’s advantage is stealth and stealth only, and even that is compromised as soon as it uses it’s(extremely advanced)radar, or engages reheat or ECM. Like it or not, in raw capability, the Typhoon and the Flanker are both the equal of the Raptor, and with development, might prove superior, as the Flanker is a very capable heavy defensive fighter, and the Typhoon is the world’s most capable close combat fighter. The only thing Raptor excels at is breaching enemy territory and launching tactical strikes, or surprise attacks against unsuspecting patrol aircraft…

I wonder what the true eurofighter would of been like if the damn French had not been part of the original consortium. It was there request that determined the look of the present Typhoon. They pulled out and created the inferior Rafale, and it was too expensive for the remaining partners start from scratch. So I really wonder what the Typhoon would of been like. Maybe a supersonic, highly agile stealthy Harrier.

Anoop, you are quite a racist and a chauvanist. I just read through this thread and noted that all you do is make bigoted statements about Americans and self-aggrandizing statements about yourself and Indians. You are a pathetic character. You have a good life in the USA and you are completely hostile and resentful about it. You should be proud of your adopted country and grateful to your hosts. Instead you just walk around every day with a chip on your shoulder thinking about how stupid everyone around you is and how much smarter you are. This is a serious pschological flaw. You speak as if you are some authority on America and Americans, but you don’t really understand anything about the USA.

Sorry, but Jon has it pretty correct. I have seen more recent video of the Raptor and it did everyhting the Su-30 vectored thrust aircraft can do. I was utterly amazed, as I am a big fan of Russian aircraft. If you add the fact that it is quite stealthy, then you have essentially an air superiority winner. Also, the electronics are ahead of what the Russians have right now and the irony is, the Russians don’t even have there own advanced aircraft, only the Indians do, and yes, they have done a great job with them. As for external stores on the F-22, don’t think that if needed, they would not be made of radar absorbing materials and composites, so as to keep it as low profile as possible. The pylons I mean, not the missiles themselves at this point. However, even with the missiles being non stealthy on external pylons (IF needed), the aircrafts total signature is still FAR less that that of a Su-30, even a clean one without any externals. It’s just not comparable radar or IR signature wise. The question is this really: Will the US buy/deploy enough of them to make a difference? and I would rather be going in for a fight in a squadron of F-22’s than a squad of SU-30’s anyday survival wise. (of course that being all said and done, I still think the Russian Mig-29 variants and the Su-27 variants to be the coolest looking aircraft around! in my humble, personal opinion of aesthethics of course)

amazing! ok, for a while there it wouldn’t let me post anything (something about the thread no longer existing in the database), so I’ve had to endure endless abuse and discussion without response-that changes NOW

I realy cannot believe what I have to read here and although it might be
somehow beside the theme I have to point some stuff out.
I mean can anyone doubt that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11 and that the US
government fooled the world, its people and soldiers into a war with lying on purpose,
resulting in more soldiers (which means sons, fathers, mothers, sisters ect.)
dying than there were victims on 9/11. If you doubt noone can help you anyway, because then
you are one of those defending the freedom in your Country not recognizing that there
is not much left since 9/11. How can you defend freedom by constantly decreasing it
on a major scale? Well now you’ve got the oil and you got a huge orwell package on top.

The next thing I cannot stand anymore is that major surperior complex some people in
the USA have to shout out loud as it seems.
I mean the US reputation in the world is at its lowest in history and constantly reminding
the world that the US saved the world from beeing german 60 Years ago doesn’t vindicate anything.
The US government has spent over 600 Billion Dollars on the useless war in Iraq as officials say (others talk of about 1000 Billion Dollars) leaving its citicens with the highest level of debt in US history, a third world electric system, no real healthcare for considerably poor people and
not a really good education system. The rate of homicides is higher than in any country in the
world and the US has the highest percentage of imprisoned people compared to the amount of inhabitants. If the money had been spent in those problems and not in the one both George Bushes had with Iraq or Saddam, it would have served the US much more. I know that Iraq had a repressive and brutal regime, but so do lots of countries in the world the USA don’t give a damn about because they don’t have oil. That is nothing to be proud of!
All of this is provable not only in the internet but also by numerous publications of world wide trusted people and organisations.

And when it comes to military achievements, the USA should be pretty silent, as most of the wars which were fought since WWII in order to free whoever were a great waste of people and ammo achieving nothing but pain for both sides.
Besides the USA achievements in War technology are mainly based on somehow aquired technology.
Just to mention some: Rocket technology, Jet propulsion, one wing planes like the B2, are based
on technology which the USA didn’t invent. So you are proud of something that others explained
to you and which you only had to enhance. Pretty poor dont you think?

I personally consider the F22 the best plane, but this is not a surprise. Would others countries
be as irresonsible and spend such a huge amount of money into military technology the results would be the same.

Just one thing to imagine, what if the USA had spent the 600 Billion Dollars on solving the
Water problem in most of the affected countries worldwide? That would have been a great day for the history books and the US reputation would have risen to an all time high!

Don’t get me wrong I have lots of friends in the USA and I respect the USA people very much, but I am sick of those who spread bullshit and lies, beeing those brainwashed “Yes, Mr. President, we follow you all the same what you do and promise not to think about it” people making life on this planet worse.

Yeah, it truly is sad that “defending” the nation, which really means protecting the lives of it’s citizens, with weapons, is somehow ok and Americans trust the goverment implicitly with this, but yet the same government that would spend the money “defending” it’s citizens with medicine and healthcare and saving there lives…well that’s just Socialism…yeahhh…..uh huh….that’s logical…amazing how populations are manipulated. My friends here in LA are not so easily fooled, but sadly they are the minority as is obvious by the elections. However, there are truly enlightened and smart Americans that see the hypocrisy, that feel Bush should be not only impeached, but in prison…cause, you know, it’s ok to start a war under false pretenses and get tens of thousands of people killed, including many Americans who trust there Commander in chief to not be trivial with there lives. (I completely respect and my heart goes out to the soldiers, we are supposed to be responsible with there lives, they are making the greatest sacrifice while we sit here and have a beer on the weekend). However, if you get a blowjob and lie about that, well Ooooo, now your a really bad president and a moral outrage! What a joke. There truly is a disconnect there on severity of action. I truly hope there is a Hell…..

Actually the duplicate comment warning makes sense, because one of the comments you’re trying to post over and over again was, as I said yesterday, already showing up. (Comment ID 34630)

Now, to not interrupt this discussion anymore, I removed the previous duplicate comment and some of the test comments and re-activated your newest comment. It’s showing up now as latest comment and you don’t need to post it again!

If you have further problems, please send me an e-mail. Link to the contact form is on the left of the page, e-mail address is michael AT flightstory.net

Hotrod, i know of the recent buying sprees of multiple countries, including India, and especially their AWACS, very interesting point to bring up. you might find this interesting:http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/
towards the bottom, it mentions unsubstantiated rumors that the US may give the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63, I believe) to the Indian Navy, free of charge. the Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be decommissioned anyway, and the indians would of course be obligated to buy an expensive American-built airwing of Super Hornets and Hawkeyes.

anoop… why would “F-14Ds Rock” make you wince? they are remarkable aircraft, and the F-14D Super Tomcat 21 was set to be the best strike fighter in the world. also, proofread please your posts; it might make them more understandable to us “much poorer and intelectually inferior” Americans. as I have tirelessly spoken of before, America is falling behind, we know this, and a few of us are trying to raise awareness so that the world doesn’t suffer under Chinese hegemony. unfortunately, the average American teenager is a retard (I’d know, I witness this on a daily basis). but that does NOT give you the right to assume that I do not read. I actually DO read, probably more than anyone here; what was your latest book? currently, I’m in Ronald H. Spector’s AT WAR AT SEA, Elizabeth Costova’s THE HISTORIAN, and Robert S. Mcnamara’s IN RETROSPECT; I also just finished Robert D. Kaplan’s BALKAN GHOSTS, the bestselling political travelogue about the most muddled region on Earth. so don’t you DARE assume I don’t read. and, btw, what genius came up with calling me a flying elephant? I hate the movie… please come up with better material, it’s the same old song, every time…

jon, please post evidence that a Raptor can do a Cobra. I profess ignorance on this, but I do recall reading that the F-22 was incapable of performing Pugachev’s Cobra. however, i also recall that whie late 4th generation Russian aircraft could do many maneuvers, a lot of them were done without control; the control surfaces were not influencing the aircraft’s flight, and the fighter would literally be in free flight (not necessarily free fall). the Raptor, however, could be in total control of its movements for a number of previously Flanker/Fulcrum-only moves. not sure why that is, or if it’s even true, i’ll leave it to others to discover, as I, also, am lazy ^_^

Ed, prove the rafale is inferior to the Eurofighter, I was under the impression that the Rafale’s stealth and improved multi-role made it superior? the EF-2000’s coming TGV upgrade will probably change that, but still… and the Harrier made a very poor fighter, only RN Sea Harriers were in any way suitable for air combat, and then only at short range.

thank you, b. you stated what we’ve all been saying for months about anoop, but you assembled our arguments together rather nicely, and added a couple of your own. welcome to the fold.

I am sick of this, you may have a point, this has been drawn out, but you’re fundamentally wrong. ok, the rocket was German. but nuclear power? nuclear waste renewal (which the French are currently using)? and no, those wars were not wastes, at least not until Vietnam, and that was a total political screw-up, not the military’s fault. are you calling Korea a wasted effort, mister? you’re asking for it. and you present the US as one huge Bush-supporting state; it ain’t like that, Bush has dragged this country down, and unfortunately most of the nation was stupid enough to vote for him. Iraq is a bad occupation (not war, that ended a long time ago), but it’d be worse if we pulled out.

thank you, b. you stated what we’ve all been saying for months about anoop, but you assembled our arguments together rather nicely, and added a couple of your own. welcome to the fold.

@F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat!
nuclear power? The first nuclear fission was done by Otto Hahn and Fritz Straßmann in 1938 and the theoretical work before by Einstein, so again it was no USA invention, but enhanced to atomic bombs and then to produce energy with atomic reactors.
Well ok Korea was a war which cannot be named useless in the first place, so I will change my words into “most of the wars”.
I know and I’m glad that many USA citicens have meanwhile realized that Bush is no good, but is it really such a great deal to notice that after 7 years, voting him twice, because of the unwritten law that you have to support the President when the country is in war, without thinking about the consequences?
Well I will not argue about the definition of war, but just because George Bush says the war is over (which has just been somehow true because the Saddam Hussein regime had been beaten), it does not mean that fights and deaths stopped, which is in my opinion the end of a war and not the replacement of the enemy. And yes it would be a great mistake to pull out now, but this is because the USA invaded a country with no plan at all what to do after the Saddam regime is overcome. Not to talk about the several illegal prisons where people were tortured by US agents and soldiers and to use the Saddam Hussein main torture prison to again torture people was not the most intelligent way of making people accept the US troups as liberators.
But to come to an end I really appreciate your way of discussing this, because I had expected
to be flamed a lot more

no, Bush didn’t say the war was over, I did. we beat Iraq, annihilated their army in a matter of weeks, THAT’S war. but we’re in an occupation now, and so far no modern military has successfully pacified an occupied region. and the fact that America reelected Bush is evidence of idiocy, people are so gullbile, i mean he totally screwed up the nation and a Republican is still in the running. actuallym ay win, if the democrats cant get their act together. i like McCain on foriegn policy a bit, but evverything else is crap. and there should be a copright on the word “change”, because it’s being used way too much by Obama. what actually can he do? America is three branches of government, not one, and the Legislature and White House need to cooperate to get anything done. with an about 50/50 split in Congress, he won’t be able to do anything, and washington will still be the same, all this change BS is making me nauseous. and Clinton… i admire her tenacity, but one should recognize when enough’s enough; i dont want to say she should pull out for the good of the party, but she’s run a good race and pretty much forced democrats to choose between her and Obama at the last minute. of course, one could just as easily blame obama… i hate politics… sucks to be this cynical as a teenager… as to illegal prisons, i love how people get so incensed about us “taking pictures” of people as humiliation. not to say Abu Ghraib was okay, it wasn’t and more soldiers and brass should’ve taken heat for that, but where’s the public outcry against Vietnam? North korea? as far as we know, more american POWs could still be there, being totured, brainwashed, killed. and hundreds of thousands of MIAs… guaranteed, the Hanoi Hilton was way worse than Saddam’s little soccer team toture chamber in american hands. and Bush did mangle Iraq, no one denies that, hell i’m sure any of us here could’ve run it better, since it looks as though we actually know what’s going on (Bush had to call for an expert to explain the difference between Sunnis and shiites… the day before the invasion). i blame the media. thank you, though, i respect those who can take a beating from me, dish out their own, and then come out with something positive. and to be honest, i had no idea about nuclear power, i was focusing more on the nuclear waste renewal thing, which was invented by the US, but “stolen” abroad.

I totally agree with your opinion on the candidates for presidency. It seems that the only chance we get in elections in general is to choose the least worst (does that make sense?) politician, which I guess was not what was intended by the inventers of democracy. Seems to be a worldwide phenomenon.

One remark to the torture topic. There is one difference which allways seems to be one of the most difficult things a country has to accomplish if it claims to be one of the keepers of democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech. The eye for an eye principle is no option. All the examples you’ve given are as evil as torture itself and involved people are, but the USA still have to set a good example. This does not mean not defending the country, but to be as close to the human rights as it is possible in a war. This is not evenhanded or fair but thats the only way to keep human rights from beeing macerated. One could say that is a bit naive but in my optinion you have to go for 100% to get 80. declaring prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other similar prisons are no prisoners of war but illegal warriors (dont know the right term) imposes upon me that it was intended to be able to get information without having to treat prisoners as stated in the geneva convention, which is far from keeping the human rights up.
But I get your point and from an emotional point of view you are right, if for example my brother would be killed by someone, I think i would give a shit about all of that, but that is the reason why a judge and not the victim decides about the punishment.

And oh yeah I blame the media too, sometimes seems like a perfect symbiosis of media and politics, when both profit from the same news coverage, leaving the truth behind.

I’am sure other countries have stolen a lot from USA inventions, but thats another war, a cold economical one which sucks too.

I really hope, even if i doubt, that mankind realizes soon enough that is is allways better to solve problems together than just heading for personal intrests. Oh well just a wish, without the entitlement to be realistic.

You are right it allways feels good to have a constructive discussion and to be honest it’s even better if both sides accept pionts of views from the other. That leaves a feeling that the discussion was not useless, but an enrichment.

… thanks for the nice welcome, I might stay for a while…

To avoid beeing totally off topic :), i think that the raptor is not only surpreme in its abilities, but also in its design. This might have to do with its stealth capabilities but it simply looks good.

here’s something i think i came up with, but if i didn’t, well, i don’t want to plagiarize: “Politics-democracy’s classic paradox; we can’t live without it, we can’t live without it”. and you’re right, it does seem to fit all over the world. “demos-kratos” in my opinion was better suited to the Greek polis, where the populations were small enough that you didn’t need massive campaigns and ads to get elected, everyone already personally knew everyone else and suppot was usually based solely on reputation and the person’s own qualities. now, the majority of candidates cater to special-interest groups, and people vote for whoever supports their own agendas, which is not how represenative democracy is designed to work. you should support who’ll benefit the nation, not just yourself; we’re supposed to put the greater good first, the collective agenda of the country.

just to add chum to the water, who do you (all) think is the “least worst candidate”? i personally haven’t figured it out yet, I think Bush left us with such a mess that no matter what whoever comes into the White House now is screwed… and maybe the next administration after that, too, there’s simply too much to clean up

yeah, I agree that Abu Graib was terrible, inhumane, etc. and i do not in any way condone such acts, but you’ve got to agree that the outcry was beyond what’d we’ve heard for other such issues involving Americans as the victims. amazng how quickly we abandon our own… true, the US, whether we like it or not, was thrust into the position of foremost leader country international policeman whatever, and we have to demonstrate that we can do our “job” efficiently, humanely, justifiably, and any other adverbs that fit. and, unfortunately, tyhere have been very few instances where we’ve managed to accomplish this. but as the Christians say, “Nobody is perfect.”

well, if you look above, you’ll see tons of debate on the topic we’re all actually supposed to be discussing. I’ll refresh everyone’s memory:

In my opinion,

the F-22A Raptor is the best AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. But that’s all it is: a one-trick pony, useless for strike missions because it can only carry 2000 lbs of air-to-ground ordnance internally. This also limits its air-to-air capability, because it’s limited to like ten missiles without wing pylons, which, by the way, totally negate stealth, so no point in mentioning them unless you want to knock the Raptor off its pedastal.
BOTTOM LINE: go against this thing one-on-one, you’re dead. if you can get a radar return off its opening bay doors, and your missile somehow defeats TVC, and you’re not dead by the time this all happens, you’ll win, assuming you have enough numbers so that a squadron of Raptors can’t kill you in one salvo.

the Su-37 Super Flanker, or Terminator if you go by Hollywood, is the best MULTI-ROLE STRIKE FIGHTER, adding TVC to an already impressive legacy of Flanker maneuverability, and combining an impressive ordnance load, advanced weapons some claim are even better than their American counterparts, and a lower price tag. lacks stealth, but when you’re the best in the neighborhood, who’ll challenge you? (besides SAMs).
note:during some of its more awesome airshow (and presumably combat) maneuvers, the Flanker is not in control, its control surfaces won’t influence the aircraft during the maneuver; the Raptor’s however, will. just something to condsider.
BOTTOM LINE: I’d rather fly this baby, shame no one bought it, although maybe that’s a good thing…

the Eurfofighter EF-2000 Typhoon is just a cut below the above two, but compared to almost anything else is still a highly capable dogfighter and multi-role strike aircraft in its own right. unlike its French cousin, the Rafale, but like the Flanker series the Typhoon lacks stealth, and originally TVC, but combines low-drag high-left delta wings with large canted canards, high-tech systems and weapons, and probably costs less due to its multi-partner design and construction.
BOTTOM LINE: the worst of the three, but an awesome aircraft all the same

THE BOTTOM LINE: multiple variables determine the outcome of a dogfight, among them pilot skill and experience, windage, altitude, first sighting, first shot, etc. when comparing such capable aircraft, it’s impossible to determine which would actually kill the other first. in a war, I’d expect the Raptors to establish air superiority, and the Flankers and Typhoons to perform a variety of missions involving delivery of ordnance, and could possibly even tangle with and shoot down some Raptors.

and they all look good, but only the F-14 is sexy

anoop-bashing seems to be the up-and-coming sport here, you’re free to join in lol

Well, what you’ve said sounds good and I can agree with that, so this will be a rather short answer.
I guess we’ve made our point.
“and they all look good, but only the F-14 is sexy :D”
Hell, yeah that’s it!

As anoop seems to be afraid of our major verbalization power combined with
argument surpremacy, he has been really quiet since May 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 am.

Maybe you should go to bed earlier anoop, ahh well maybe time difference.

To the rest this is no written radio drama, why did all of you stop arguing?

Hey folks. Just catching up with all the posts - my opinion on the Presidental race is this. Unfortunately, you’re going to end up with another Republican President. Rather than go for real change, middle America is instantly going to vote for the safest, and dare I say it, WHITEST male candidate on the block. I think Obama would have made a worthy President. I think Mrs. Clinton would have made a worthy President (I was something of a Clinton fan during Bill’s term in office…). I think (middle)America will vote for it’s white, male, Vietnam vet and perpetrate the same mistakes all over again. I don’t think America’s voters have the balls to REALLY embrace change by having their first coloured President, or their first female President… and it’s really a damned shame.

On to the aircraft. I still disagree with everyone as far as Raptor being the finest fighter. LOL. I would place it second behind the Tiffy, but it’s STILL the case that they are optimised for different tasks. Making all the points up above this quite redundant, actually. But still damned good fun!

As far as the F-117’s retirement goes… I am kind of sorry to see it go. Many a time driving past RAF Mildenhall I was flown over by Nighthawks. Noisy buggers! But a truly remarkable aircraft, although it should have been designated A-117, as it was NEVER a fighter. I think there is still a place for it, personally.

well, i like McCain on Iraq, but that’s it (i think pulling out, in the long run, will be bad); otherwise, no one has popped out to me as the best candidate. there really should be a copyright on “change” and “hope” and “audacity” etc. i mean, what do people really think will change if Obama is elected? the US is a three-branch government, two of them responsible for running the country-the legislative and executive branches. a democratic white house will still have its hands tied if Congress is split 50-50, because usually you need a 51% or 2/3 majority to get anything passed. and right now, despite all the damage done by Republicans before the last congressional elections, Congress is in slight favor of the Republicans! so how will Obama or Clinton or McCain get any of their “change” done if the other party just stonewalls them in the Capitol? maybe I’m too cynical for a teenager, but hey, someone has to be; guaranteed in four years Obama or McCain will have fallen flat on their faces and I’ll be laughing in the stunned faces of their supporters, a big fat “I told you so”

the F-117 in my opinion was an over-rated expensive next-to-useless flying brick; couldn’t carry that much, couldn’t fly in the rain, could only fly at night in good weather, was subsonic, lacked maneuverability, the list goes on. Have Blue was originally intended to develop a stealth “fighter”, but all they got was a mediocre interdiction strike plane. the Nighthawk was instrumental in the development of stealth technology, I’ll give it that, but otherwise we lost one of Serbia, who knows how many more have suffered battle damage, all from third-world countries equipped with ’60s-era Soviet hardware. is that an impressive record to lack back upon? didn’t think so, but decide for yourselves; it’s about time they retired it

The best fighter is f-22, because it is the only one from 5th category. others are from 3-4 category, su 37 is upgrade from su 30 with just upgraded avionics and that’s all.
And the f-22 raptor is brand new, avionics, electronics, defeces and offese systems. The brand new f-35 is all so 5th generation fighter.
Su 37 and Eurofighter are the same as modernized f-15 falckon.

hey, Best Fighter is, nice to see someone new show up. just a reminder, though, to those of you who continue to make raw conclusions without backing up your convictions - please provide evidence for why you think one way or another. Best Fighter is, if you had scrolled up a bit, you would have seen several arguments (in particular, mine) stating that the F-35 is not the hyped-up “5th gnereation all new” stealth fighter everyone builds it up to be. the Lightning II is 80% overweight, carrys all ordnance externally, isn’t even that stealthy, lacks advanced combat systems of the Raptor, and overall it’s major asset is STOVL. and the F-22 Raptor is NOT brand new; i love how people start hearing about it for the first time and automatically assume that it’s new. the YF-22 Raptor program began in the 80’s, and flew against the YF-23 in the 90’s, i think. that makes this plane two decades old already, at least. and no, the Su-37 and EF-2000 could pwn an F-15, even an F-15K Slam Eagle, the most advanced Eagle variant in the world at this time.

Am I the only person here who regards the F-35B a complete waste of time? Surely the Royal Navy (from a purely British viewpoint this…) would be better served by procuring the F-35C (being the conventional carrier version, I think….) for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales… I don’t think the STOVL F-35 is suitable any more, being as all versions are overweight. It has the smallest radius of action, it’s the slowest, it carries a smaller warload and it’s the heaviest of the lot. There’s advantages to ordering the F-35C for the Navy and fitting out the carriers for normal wire catching ops. We can then procure E-2C or D Hawkeyes for Naval AWACS, finally being able to replace the old Sea King ASaC 7 airborne radar pickets. Another point on conventional jets would be being able to embark other NATO carrier aircraft like Rafale or F/A-18s, and vice-versa on other NATO carriers. The only reason I can see in fitting out for STOVL ops on the new carriers is so we can keep playing with Joint Force Harrier for a few more years. What is everyone’s views BTW about Lockheed Martin being bubbled for lying through their teeth about the cost of the F-35 programme so far??

One more thing @ F-14s Rock… Thanks for that link, mate. Made very interesting reading… Do you think the States would give India the Kitty Hawk? I can see the fact that they would then have to buy a wing of very expensive American aircraft to equip it, but I think the Indians are more likely to keep buying Russian in the meantime, so I think they will keep their contract for the Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramaditya). Unless, and it’s a fairly long shot, they manage to procure both. It all depends on whether the rumours of the Kitty Hawk being offered are true… Would America offer India defence equipment as it already does good business with Pakistan? Or does America see the current trend for Pakistani/Chinese defence programmes as a competitor for it’s own armament sales, hence it’s offers to India, which traditionally buys British or Russian equipment?

The F22 will always win as long as it remains undetectable. Once that’s overcome it becomes another 4th generation fighter.

The F35 can not be justified with its limited improvements over existing aircraft. The A10, F15E and F16 are capable planes that do not need replacing. If the US military needs a stealth attack aircraft then build an armed stealth UAV or use B2s. Both can take out AAA and SAMs, and then have the F16/F15E/A10 come in and mop up. Their is no longer a need for manned tactical attack aircraft.

Couldn’t have said it any better, the Typhoon is the most capable across the widest range of scenarios. It’s also cheaper, the limited production of the F-22 and the insistence of the US government in restricting its export due to the stealth capabilities really drive the price up artificially, even in its homeland it’s seen as a huge expense.

The F-22 is a stunning machine no doubt and some of the manoeuvres it pulls off are breathtaking yet its primary advantages are severely limited in real world combat situations, armament and range is limited while maintaining stealth capability. In the right situation however I have little doubt that the raptor would dominate, it’s just not very likely the scenario would present itself.

The SU is more along the lines of the Typhoon but lacks the technology to make it a real competitor, sorry but that’s the bottom line. With the right pilot of course it could be a real match but on the whole is a harder aircraft to fly than both the Typhoon and the F-22 leaving the pilot with less time to concentrate on the fight, the lack of the advanced avionics found in the Typhoon and F-22 are a severe disadvantage.

wow, I leave for a coupla weeks, and look what happens! totally forgot about this thread, sorry guys, lots of stuff going on…

actually, doesn’t look like much happened after all, same old typical comments sprinkled with a few sensible thoughts, and your welcome, Hotrod, I figured it would make for interesting reading, although, it should be noted, DefenseIndustryDaily has not posted any further updates on the subject. and maybe you’re right; defense contractors and the DoD are now more than ever looking for foriegn buyers to both buy more airframes and drive the cost down, respectively. but it must be said that a carrier (with possible air wing) is a lot bigger deal than the F-16s and upgrades we’ve been giving Pakistan. and it’s not like the Indian Ocean needs another ocean power, Diego Garcia is crowded enough as is.

I think Fraser makes rather good points, and also brings up an angle we haven’t really looked at; he’s repositioning the EF-2000 and Su-37, saying the former’s better. I guess I never considered the older avionics of the Flanker, and assumed that it, like the Su-30, had been upgraded and updated for export with the times.

love how anoop got censored, doesn’t really take a lot of imagination to guess what he said, though ;P

Interesting comments from all over here. Amazing how much ignorance here too. The F-22 is a production aircraft now so this eliminates the Russian aircraft from competition. Of course we all know how much the Russians steal technology from all over. The Eurofighter is a great airplane but lacks the stealth. The F-22 has by far more power and thrust to weight so it accelerates harder and has supercruise capability. The radar is far superior to anything in the world as fighters go and all the competition would be blown out of the sky before they are even seen. If it came to close in fighting, they would still lose to the 7200 rounds per min. 20mm cannon and superior thrust vectoring and pilot training. This will be a great jet along with all of the other fantastic allied airplanes who will soon fight against the loser communist dictatorship countries. The F-15 was often criticized and yet was never lost to battle ever in air to air combat. Good ole USA.

Eric Moore presents his case well, almost lulling even me into a false sense of security believing that the US will finally triumph… if only the tooth fairy was real. I suppose this is really the fault of every old-timer here (including me): we haven’t clarified what “F-22 Raptor VS SU-37 VS SU-30 VS Eurofighter Typhoon” really means. Is the question referring to how each plane would do in aerial combat? or is it asking which plane is the better fighter, in terms of characterisitcs, flexibility, affordability, firepower, range, payload variety, STOL-or-otherwise, etc. I think so far that the more learned among us have been translating the question as being of the latter type, while the random small-time contributors answer only the former. This I have tried to rectify in the past, and I will do so again now, by reiterating several of my key points:

“the F-22A Raptor is the best AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. But that’s all it is: a one-trick pony, useless for strike missions because it can only carry 2000 lbs of air-to-ground ordnance internally. This also limits its air-to-air capability, because it’s limited to like ten missiles without wing pylons, which, by the way, totally negate stealth, so no point in mentioning them unless you want to knock the Raptor off its pedastal.
BOTTOM LINE: go against this thing one-on-one, you’re dead. if you can get a radar return off its opening bay doors, and your missile somehow defeats TVC, and you’re not dead by the time this all happens, you’ll win, assuming you have enough numbers so that a squadron of Raptors can’t kill you in one salvo.

the Su-37 Super Flanker, or Terminator if you go by Hollywood, is the best MULTI-ROLE STRIKE FIGHTER, adding TVC to an already impressive legacy of Flanker maneuverability, and combining an impressive ordnance load, advanced weapons some claim are even better than their American counterparts, and a lower price tag. lacks stealth, but when you’re the best in the neighborhood, who’ll challenge you? (besides SAMs).
note:during some of its more awesome airshow (and presumably combat) maneuvers, the Flanker is not in control, its control surfaces won’t influence the aircraft during the maneuver; the Raptor’s however, will. just something to consider.
BOTTOM LINE: I’d rather fly this baby, shame no one bought it, although maybe that’s a good thing…

the Eurfofighter EF-2000 Typhoon is just a cut below the above two, but compared to almost anything else is still a highly capable dogfighter and multi-role strike aircraft in its own right. unlike its French cousin, the Rafale, but like the Flanker series the Typhoon lacks stealth, and originally TVC, but combines low-drag high-left delta wings with large canted canards, high-tech systems and weapons, and probably costs less due to its multi-partner design and construction.
BOTTOM LINE: the worst of the three, but an awesome aircraft all the same

THE BOTTOM LINE: multiple variables determine the outcome of a dogfight, among them pilot skill and experience, windage, altitude, first sighting, first shot, etc. when comparing such capable aircraft, it’s impossible to determine which would actually kill the other first. in a war, I’d expect the Raptors to establish air superiority, and the Flankers and Typhoons to perform a variety of missions involving delivery of ordnance, and could possibly even tangle with and shoot down some Raptors.”

Here we are again. LOL. I still think you’re wrong, F-14s Rock. I maintain that Typhoon is FAR better than the SU and the equal of the Raptor in terms of mission effectiveness. In fact it’s superior in swing role capability, which is exactly what it was designed for, and what the Raptor isn’t… As far as Rafale vs. Typhoon goes, Rafale is easily outmanoeuvered by the Tiffy and is not as effective a weapon system. The SU is hampered by it’s inferior avionics and dated airframe, although this is compensated for by it’s advanced weaponry.

The Raptor is very much a one trick pony, as F-14s said. It’s M61A2 gun is smaller in calibre (and therefore destructive power, being as it’s a 20mm, as opposed to the 27mm Mauser cannon of the Tiffy and the 30mm cannon of the SU…) and is a 1960s generation weapon. It lacks a helmet mounted cueing system for high off boresight missile launch, which in modern day aerial warfare is a terrible omission for the world’s supposedly premier fighter aircraft. As far as the myths about the Raptor’s TVC goes - it operates in the vertical plane only and therefore is only effective for manoeuvering purposes at low speed… the post stall flight regime is not really useful in combat unless you are whipping the nose up to fire a missile in defence (which is where a helmet mounted cueing system would come in useful!). The vectoring system is only really used for trimming purposes in supercruise… and where does this myth that only the Raptor is capable of supercruise come from, Eric Moore??? The Rafale, Gripen, SU-30/37 and Typhoon ALL supercruise, admittedly NOT as fast as the Raptor does. Raptors only outmanouevre Typhoon above 50000ft because of their superior thrust in the thinner air up there. BUT Typhoon was never designed for that sort of altitude…

I contend also that Typhoon was designed for a modern European conflict, as opposed to Raptor which was designed to the ATF requirement, which was for an aircraft to launch a counter offensive against the Soviet Union after a nuclear strike on the U.S. (as far as I am aware… correct me if I am wrong!) And the radar question… the Raptor has the best radar in the world, no question. APART from the fact that no-one nows just how capable the BARS radar on the SU series is, yet. In Exercise Indradhanush earlier this year, Indian SU-30MKI pilots were instructed not to use the BARS radar under any circumstances in case the West gets any idea of it’s capabilities. Phew. That took a while.

Seriously, the M60A2 is more of an ’80s weapon, I thought, considering it’s the M60A”1″ that equipped the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. I still see an Su-37 (upgraded, of course, for a modern buyer to modern standards) as being more capable than the Tiffy, but I don’t think I can estimate how much better, or how so. Call it gut, and the realization that I’d rather have a Flanker covering my back than a Eurofighter. Especially considering the weapons difference… and I also think the “Advanced Tactical Fighter” requirement was for, quite simply, a tactical fighter, and in that case very much so designed for a European war (if the shit ever hit the fan, WWIII would have surely started in Germany, and almost certainly there would have been at least one large air battle to determine air superiority before mobile SAMs could move in and crash the party). Tiffy was probably designed for a revised vision of Europe, in which there would be no high altitude skirmish. thankfully, we’ve never had to learn, but if Russia continues like it has, we just may. one thing’s for sure; I don’t think the raptor was designed for nuclear strike.

I also like the helmet-mounted targeting idea, but isn’t the Stryker helmet made for that? It’s a helluva advantage in any dogfight, just look at your opponent from any angle and “Fox 2!”

Look, I’ve seen the demo of the F22 Raptor. It has complete air power and authority in a dog fight. There is no fighter plane that can take it out. You guys obviously have not seen it all. Dude, I never even saw an F22, and I didn’t even know planes could do that. I was stunned. I’d put an F22 against any fighter jet in the world today.

wouldn’t it be nice if all ignorant newcomers read what was above BEFORE they commented? GrandGizmo, the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29 could do maneuvers like the Raptor twenty years ago, including “Pugachev’s Cobra”, something no American plane has performed to date. and besides, dogfighting is but one area a fighter must excell in to be successful nowadays. and TVC (Thrust-Vector Control) has been around, as far as I know, since the A-6 Intruder, which could cant its exhaust nozzles downward to aid takeoff, and ever since the Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE most people have been aware of what TVC can do; the Raptor is no different.

and btw, I HAVE seen a Raptor perform, and it WAS awesome, but is that all I going to base my opinions on? NO!

Hey all ! its cool to watch those video on different aircrafts. Perhaps , the best fighter plane
could only be ask on the opinion of a great pilot who undergone all types of fighter and they
should tell honestly from themselve after experiencing all planes.

As for me after wathcing those videos, I felt that the Russian SU-37 should be the best since
it has displayed agility in total control of all moves easily.

The SU 37 and Eurofighter would have a tough enough time fighting the F-15. Both the Russian and Euro fighters are not even in the same class as the Raptor. There is still a lot of features and specs on the F-22 that Top Secret and thus un published to the public.

The Raptor features a super cruise speed and more advanced weaponary then any other aircraft on the planet. Raptor pilots are also the most highly trained pilots on the planet. They are the best of the best from the US airforce. Anyone who doubts this just look at the USAF tack record over the last 20 years.

Russian and Euro pilots are un tested, while US pilots are battle hardened and their training is done from pilots who have extensive battle experience. The United States has NEVER lost an air war in any major battle.

The F-22 Raptor is the best of the best in air superiority and will out shine the F-15 Eagle if anyone puts this to the test…

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the next best thing to Raptor, not the Early 90’s designed Eurofighter or the much hyped Russian SU 37 or SU 47.

Hi everyone, here’s my take… I’m really only familiar with the ‘22 and Typhoon so I will only comment on them

F-22:
Pros: All aspect stealth (radar and IR), supercruise of mach 1.5 , 2D thrust vectoring*, long range, highly maneuverable, integrated avionics, phased array radar
Cons: Limited combat persistence due to small payload (internal), not ‘multirole’**, currently it’s ‘rate limiting factor’ (borrowing term from chemistry) is it’s weapons. (AMRAAM c is good, but really needs something better, something along the lines of Meteor)
Weapons: M61A2, AMRAAMc and AIM-9M (later will get AIM-9X which has better off bore-sight ability and TVC)

Eurofighter:
Pros: Truely multirole (or will be after Tranche 2 is complete), supercruise of mach 1.3 and can reach mach 1.6 with three external fuel tanks and 6 AAMs, highly maneuverable with small turn radius and high sustained turn rates with some sources quoting superior performance over the ‘22 in parts of the supersonic envelope, will be getting the Meteor long range AAM
Cons: limited range with only internal fuel, limited stealth capabilities (some application of RAM and curved air intake, some sources quote RCS second only to the ‘22 in the next gen fighters), no TVC (yet), no phased array radar (yet)
Weapons: Mauser 27mm cannon, RAF will have ASRAAM (aptly named), AMRAAM (atm, but later will get Meteor upgrade), the Germans will have the IRIS-T

*Note that TVC does not ‘improve’ maneuverability, but allows for instantaneous snapshots for a cannon kill or missile lock at the expense of losing lots of speed. Another benefit is better trimming for supersonic flight resulting in better fuel efficiency.
**Not necessarily a con, for it does (will do) what it was designed to do, and will be complemented by JSFs which in my view are F-22s but carry bombs

Haven’t drawn any conclusions as I’m biased (I think the Eurofighter is simply beautiful and that’s not very objective), but I welcome any comments. As a disclaimer I must say not everything above is fact, but it’s what I’ve heard, seen, read over the last 8 years as a fan of flight sims and aviation in general.

Shawn your facts are biased and quite old. The last major aerial battle won by the USA comes from back in the Vietnam era (yet they lost the war but that is another story). The rest conflicts won, were against opponents with woefully INFERRIOR AIR FORCES with older planes (you can not compare SU-22s and Mig-21/23s to the F-14 AND F-15, EVEN THE MIG-29 deployed at only a few units, was MUCH INFERRIOR in total combat performance) without AWACS and much older electronics (IRAQ and Yugoslavia for example). The only headache for the USA were the anti aircraft quided missiles deployed by those countries (SAM Batteries like SA-2,3 and SA- 6)which were finally either silenced or destroyed. The only trully battle hardended pilots are the Israelis with a never ending “war time peace”.
As for the planes it is true that the F-22 is the most advanced of them all, but this is one side of the coin. The F-22 CARRIES AN EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED RADAR THE APG-77 (the best all around radar). The ironic thing is that the moment this radar is functioning the stealth element goes out of the equation. So the F-22 has to rely on data link with an AWACS in order to have its radar OFF and be trully stealthy. One additional sensor carried by all the three planes is the IRST which uses infra red sensors for tracking the engines heat signature of the opposing planes. So we have two major battle scenarios the F-22 has to use the data limk from the AWACS and its infra red sensors in order to be trully “stealthy”. The search radius of an E-3 Sentry is 800-1000 km in the scan mode but the data link can work only at drastically lower distances. Therefore in a huge combat area like the enormous plains of the former soviet union the data link would be in-operable (Because the AWACS would have to stay in a secure air zone away from the russian fighters).
This leaves the IRST sensor as the last resort solution for the F-22. The only problem is that the Ruskies have far more advanced infra red sensors so as you can see in this scenarion the situation is completely reversed.
Furthermore in a close range dog fight the F-22 is not better than the other two opponents. Let us also not forget the pilots flying those babies and thaty they are the single most decisive factor behind the victory especially in a dog fight.
My point is the following : yes the F-22 is of an entirely different class compared to the other two planes but it is not unbeatable. Under the right circumstances it can also be shot down as any other plane. The F-22 will usually have the first shot advantage in most worldwide local conflicts (and therefore the greatest probbapility for a kill). Finally i believe that all the other major air powers of the world will already have produced a counter measure for the F-22 extraordinary capabilities.(CHECK MULTI STATIC RADARS)

One thing that i should add is the following. The total range of the E-3 I mentioned is the ideal one (scanning purposes only, not tracking). Furthermore the tartget must have a large enough RCS in order to be scanned and the E-3 must operate at a high Altitude to be able to utilise all its capabilities. In realistic operations the E-3would be doing well if it spotted a Su-30 at 400-450km.
As far as history has shown in an aerial battle between two equally or almost equally opponents, one thing is certain. That is that the BVR capabilities although important are not enough. USA found it out the hard way in Vietnam when they saw their kill ratio dropping from 8 to 1 in the Korean war to 3 to 1. The MIGs were ideal doog fighters, very small and extremely agile and only the superior training and tactics of the US Pilots saved the day.My point is that in a war of immense proportions a substantial part of the aerial battle will result in close combat situations. There it is the skill of each pilot which will determine the outcome.
Todays dogfighting however is much different than before (as 20-30 years ago). Helmet aiming devices and missiles aiming at+/-90 degrees off boresight have dramatically increased the probability of a kill in a dogfight. Add the so called sting of the Sukhois (backwards firing system) and the TVC and you have a superb dogfighter at low speeds. At higher speeds and altitudes the delta wing with canards is better (but again it would have been nice to see the EF-2000 WITH TVC).
F-22 has much more energy reserves (higher thrust to weight ratio almost 1.5 and supercruise) than both the other fighters but this is realisable only at altitudes above 30.000 feet.
So finally we end up again in pilots and tactics. Hopefully we will never have to find out what would actually happen.

Sounds like Anoop is a traitor. He lives in the US but badmouths the country that promotes his profession and skills. Though some of his comments should be taken as ‘CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM’, he does not have any specific plans nor recommendations but just jealousy filled criticism and comparison to EVERYONE vs US. With Medical Professionals like you, US doesn’t need enemy.

The self-imposed radar restrictions prevented U.S. snoops from “mapping” the high-tech radar. But other restrictions were dictated by the Indians’ U.S. hosts, Fulghum writes in his excellent piece. The Indians were barred from using data-links, chaff and flares. “When we were targeted by SAMs, we were shot down,” Choudry said. “And there was no [data] picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the work load on the [aircrews] was very high.”

We noted a couple months back that the U.S. Air Force’s F-22s strangely were sitting out this exercise, missing the chance to tangle with the best “enemy” fighter out there. But with the various restrictions, it probably wouldn’t have been anything like a fair or realistic fight.

Regardless, Choudry insisted Red Flag was a good experience for his pilots. Indeed, the Indian Air Force was especially keen to observe U.S. “Net-Centric Warfare” (NCW) operations. “You cannot survive today for long against a good adversary without the NCW capability,” IAF vice chief Air Marshal P.V. Naik told The Economic Times. He added that India would debut its own command-and-control networks in 2010.

The US experienced similar restrictions during the previous Cope India exercises, in which the Indian AF did really well against USAF F-15s.

Another reason for the IAF to show the potential for older equipment’s potential through the mutually agreed india favoring COPE INDIA exercise for pumping (Money sucking Politicians/DOD contractors) more money into the aging equipment. Sure the US will take the COPE INDIA outcome to the congress to make them spend more for being defeated in an exercise by older inferior equipment. Both sides have their agendas with the budget. The DOD politics is just as interesting. Ever thought about it that way ?

MiG-27 are being upgraded.
Jaguar IS have been upgraded with DARIN-II as far as I know.
Jaguar IM have recieved Israeli Radar and ECM pod.
Su-30MkI will undergo progressive upgrade.
MiG-21Bis being upgraded.
Mi-24/35 upgraded by Israel.

Mirage-2000H will be upgraded to Mirage-2000V standards, coz IAF can’t maintain an inventory of Mirage-2000H and Mirage-2000V, it would be stupid.

MiG-29 will see upgrade but only in air-air terms, as was said by former ACM a long time ago. They continue as IAF’s only pure air-air fighter.

justanother,
we were called traitors (sic) when we didn’t support the misadventure in iraq. we were “un-patriotic”, though our children fought there, as did mine.
Think
It is not the machine that wins air combat but the man behind it - every war since the 1917s has shown this.
I decided to watch this thread for some time to its inevitable conclusion with the culmination of red flag this month.
To me - and to the pilots of that su=30 squadron (now in retrospect), the results were inevitable.
the 3/4-1 ratio of Cope India exercises were not “dictated by India” but were an ACCURATE depiction of current USAF combat dictum: relevant apparently even today!!!
Losing to MiG 21s should have been catastrophic enough for the US to re-think their evaluation of the world and its potential, but not so!!
the iaf fought under many constraints: no radar, no chaff etc and YET they bested the USAF, Korean AF and France’s Rafaels!
to me, the answer is clear as to who should be awarded the contract for the 120 plus aircraft for the IAF:
we were better than the Eurofighter, the Rafael, the F-16 and F-15. so: the winner is: the MiG 35.
enjoy

Cost to much? This is america We can spend more than any other country and we arent selling it to other countries anyway. so the cost is also Moot. The us air force is the largest in the world and next to that is our navy then in third is india.

i see your russian Plasma and raise you the fact that the US and France have that technology developed as far as the reds do. Im sure since they cant master the current stelth tech that they will fully get the next gen of it. and as to your comment Sukhoi mig: call the f22 what you want but until the russians do get their tech up to par all you have is a half price second fiddle. our defense spending is about 10.1 times russias. We will destroy the world before giving up military dominance. Oh and i dont see americans going to russia but the russians pop up over here an awful lot if we suck so bad why are we still playing welcome wagon to all its residents. im not saying go home but i am saying stop emulating our culture if your so much better(and dont say they dont because everyone know the entire world want to be us and the only way to be the best is to take out the best. its an extreme compliment if you think about it)

lol, and looks like not a moment too soon. at least LordBill held the fort for a while.

first off, Mr. Teo, the Su-37 is NOT in total control during some of its maneuvers; in this the F-22 is better, because the plane will still respond to its control surfaces during many maneuvers the Su-37 would just drift.

Shawn, the F-15 can’t take on both the Eurofighter and the Flanker while sitting on its ass, the
Eagles are falling apart, and especially compared to the Typhoon the Eagle’s systems aren’t that great. as to a “USAF track record”, you mind showing me it? USAF has had little Air-to-Air experience since Vietnam; Iraq and Yugoslavia were MiG turkey shoots more than anything… and if they hadn’t tested the Raptor against the F-15, then the Air Force wouldn’t be doing its job. as to the F-35 JSF, the design is crap, 80% overweight, small internal bomb bay, little operational stealth capability, etc. and don’t put down the “’90s designed” Eurofighter when the Raptor was designed mid ’80s. the F-35 si nothing more than one more rung on the ladder towards a fully V/STOL stealthy JSF.

Mike (NZ), your points are welcome, but i must disagree with your view that the F-35 is an “F-22 that carries bombs”. the F-35, because of its smaller size and lowered cost, does not sport the same advanced systems as the Raptor, its bombbay is if anything smaller, it isn’t as stealthy, and it’s 80% overweight. plus I thought SecDef Gates ordered Lockheed Martin back to the drawing board on it…

LordBill is right on as always, and btw an upcoming Eurofighter upgrade is TVC, so…

Justanotherguy, thank you for the clarification on the IAF, plus the Anoop-bashing (our favorite sport :D)

Annop, we’ve SAID before, the miG-21 and -29 are much more capable dogfighters than the F-15 and F-16, but the latter two tend to be flown by better pilots trained for more than just dogfighting. in other words, the -21 and -29 are not multi-role aircraft. quit bringing out the same old stuff and learn some new material!

ednonymous may actually have a point…

Chemist, I’ve seen those videos, no where in them does a Raptor actually CHANGE ITS ANGLE OF ATTACK WHILE TRAVELING IN A STRAIGHT LINE. so yes, the raptor can do cartwheels and all that, but it CANNOT PERFORM PUGACHEV’S COBRA! and btw, no, we cannot spend money on anything, in case you haven’t noticed this country is nearing RECESSION with a massive budget deficit, draining occupations in two embroiled countries, and a presidential election coming up. plus, they’ve been cutting defense spending for the past twenty years. why do you think the Air Force is only buying a couple hundred raptors? and chemist, try to avoid the second fiddle slurs, I play second violin lol

well, i see that justanother has not responded after his rather virliotic attack- i wonder if he even understands that word!!!
did you fight against the forces in iraq? or afghanistan?
cowards LIKE YOU NEED TO GO TO YOUR MOTHER’S ARMS AND GROVEL
MY FATHER FOUGHT AGAINST BOTH CHINA AND PAKISTAN IN 4 WARS
And i served in the indian navy, and my children in the Us navy in iraq twice.
so dont you dare call us traitors
crawl back into the dark hole you came from and CRINGE

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2008/item2/article3/ (source)
7500 where is that number from. lets see a source aside from some little gem you have gleaned from some strange place. 1700? we have almost 2500 fighters alone and india as always is a non issue until i need some tech support!

the tech support statment isnt meant to be rude but lets be honest india will take us out from the inside before it ever happens in the air. if they dont get with china and just buy us at our quickly approaching bargain price first.

good old f-14 is back!!!
all your intellectual masturbating led to what?
red flags: another fiasco
oops and where were the f22s when indians came to try out??
too busy demonstrating in airs shows
would look rather BAD if the SUs blew them out too!
AND that too without chaff, flares and even radar!!!

It’s clear by these videos that the F-22 lags behind the other three, in such critical areas as lack of smoke generators on the wingtips, but mostly for the lack of a triumphant musical soundtrack. That really kills it.

The SU - 30 is absolutally extream about 10 countries have ordered them
the typhoon is the only one to be able to stand up to them, the SU - 37 is not in production and won’t be for about 5 more years F-22 eats it hasn’t got thrust vectoring which limits its speed and agility in the air. watch out world America doesn’t make any thing good any more

anoop, low little obscenities like those will get you nowhere. although I must admit, for once your material is almost first-rate: “intellectual masturbating”? lol, sounds like someone’s got a little too much time on their hands… and “stupid” is spelled with a “u”, not “oo”, just clearing that up my family tree is first rate, not that it matters…

Wyseguy i like, Super Ninja Magic Sandwich… i love the name, but the opinion was rather lacking…

F-14
STOOPID IS ENGLISH JARGON FOR idiot OR SEMI-EDUCATED git
DO YOUR HOMEWORK U SEMI UNEDUCATED GIT
as for your family SHRUB: any cousins inter=marry???

moron
1st rate in what? retardo patrezi?
so retardo,where were the F-22 raptors when the sukhois flew half way across the globe to do combat with them?
as for the itellectual bit, think i over did it for a limited sub intelligent semi-educated person like u
so, when u discover your family shub-tree , light a candle for your inter-nuncial neuron that has no synapse to link to the only afferent neuron in your cranial cavity.
synaptic connections with their terminal boutons are essential for afferent procession of excitatory potentials across the rather crass and basic nervous system you OBVIOUSLY - and-unfortunately inherited
now this is not low obscenities
and dicko
my info is always “first class”
as they say HISTORY always proves the truth
love u
bye bye

hey guys
24 hrs plus and no response???!!!
you know, a lot of this thread has related to rather opinionated / technical discussions about the various aircraft involved.
nothing was really mentioned about the man-machine interface.
look at the american response: we are the best!!
tell that to the jap zero fighters or the North vietnamese mig-21 pilots who know otherwise.
nothing in my opinion - is more disastrous than under estimating one’s adversary.
the usaf tends to do this routinely
with disastrous results when faced with a well trained and equipped adversary.
in the months to come, AWACs, refuelling mid air etc is going to become the accepted dictum not only of the usaf but the other “friendly forces” too.
don’t forget the iaf routed usaf units in red flags without their own friendly awacs, digital data links to other su-30s, chaff and flares.
we are the world’s two biggest democracies and so - by default - their best allies.
i am an indian-american and proud of this.
my children served in iraq on two occasions
but this does not blinker me in seeing what is happening in our world
my residents are good people - but mathematically challenged.
whatever i or u say, will NOT change this reality.
this world is changing rapidly, and we owe it to un and our children to adapt.
otherwise, we will all fail to this over pervasive islamic threat we all face.

First time participation of Indian Air Force with eight SU-30 MK-I fighters, two IL-78 mid-air refueling aircraft and one IL-76 transport aircraft. Also first-time participation of six F-15K fighters of the South Korean Air Force.

How about a new tactic. Let’s give the Euro fighter (EF) and SU the maneuverability award. However, that did not win in Vietnam (3-1) or for the Zero once the US pilots figured out how to fight with what they had. In air combat, speed is life. None of these air show tricks is likely to be tried in combat. How fast are you going after you pull a “cobra”? Let’s say you try it and actually shoot down the other guy (with a missile since he’s already out of range of your gun). Now you are barely moving and are probably at low altitude. A sitting duck for a missile or any other plane that is around.

I live under an occasional air refueling track. I can barely hear the tankers but I can see them. I can hear the fighters, but the only time I can spot them (20/15 vision) is when they are right next to the tanker or they light off their afterburner (glow visible at night time only). This is at a vertical of 3-5 miles and maybe 3 horizontal. Let’s say 8 miles away I cannot spot a fighter in it’s most visible configuration (full profile). So what is the range when it is head on? Moving 600 miles per hour you cover a mile every 6 seconds?(closing, reduce that to 3 seconds) So if you completely ignore everything in your cockpit you have how long to see me? Oh yeah, is it ever cloudy in Northern Europe or Russia? What about nighttime? Do they have that up there, and during the winter is it longer than half the day? So when, exactly, do you actually have visual range jet combat? And if you have any, what percentage of the time is it?

So now your in a visual dog fight. What weapon are you using? Probably a heat seeking missile. Does anyone believe that you can out turn one of these? Every sharp turn reduces your speed, making you more vulnerable. Let’s assume all the planes have pretty much the same counter measures. But you just can’t get away. If you manage to shake one, the next one will get you. Missiles are a lot easier and cheaper to improve and test.

Does anyone know when the last time a jet was shot down with a gun? I don’t recall the Falklands well enough, US Navy vs. Libya it was missiles, and I am ignorant of India (if any) and am not sure about Israel. There was an A-10 that took out a helicopter in Iraq, but not quite the same.

Any platform that brings a missile into range of the enemy can shoot him down if the missiles are good. If they had self directed missiles they could load a B52 with them and just park it next to an AWACS and clear the skies.

So lets move to the F22. Stealth is claimed as a one trick pony. Lets just call it a counter measure that reduces the effectiveness of your enemies weapons by 50%. Would you like to have that on your personal airplane? Thought so. It’s not perfect but it’s sure nice to have. As for losing the advantage (”your dead as soon as you open your bay doors”) does that mean the other guys are dead as soon as they leave the runway? I also can’t believe that the F22 is criticized for only holding 8 missiles. I imagine you would be real low on fuel if you managed to expend that many weapons. As for being a one trick pony (no ground attack ability) once the air defenses are destroyed, stealth isn’t an issue and you can load all the bombs you want under the wings.

In summary, stealth is a huge advantage. If the F22 had fought in Vietnam I imagine its radar and missiles would have precluded the need for the gun.

ah, anoop… back to the old days, i guess. first, lay off the profanity and the name-calling; prove you’re the proud intelligent reasonable worldwise person you keep claiming you are. second, report facts, not obvious bullshit.

- “you know, a lot of this thread has related to rather opinionated / technical discussions about the various aircraft involved.
nothing was really mentioned about the man-machine interface.
look at the american response: we are the best!!
tell that to the jap zero fighters or the North vietnamese mig-21 pilots who know otherwise.
nothing in my opinion - is more disastrous than under estimating one’s adversary.
the usaf tends to do this routinely
with disastrous results when faced with a well trained and equipped adversary.” -

let’s critique this, shall we? “opinionated/technical discussions about the various aircraft involved. nothing was really mentioned about the man-machine interface.”, i assume, means you think we’re only looking at the aircraft, and not their crews. well, read this, and eat your heart out: “multiple variables determine the outcome of a dogfight, among them pilot skill and experience, windage, altitude, first sighting, first shot, etc. when comparing such capable aircraft, it’s impossible to determine which would actually kill the other first.” I wrote that on July 21st, and I specifically say “multiple variables” influence “the outcome of a dogfight”, particularly “PILOT SKILL AND EXPERIENCE”! many of us have reiterated, time and again, that pilots are the most reliable factor in judging comparisons between planes. but at the same time, we also look at the planes without the pilots, and examine what’s what. is that truly so bad? to me, this represents simply another facet, another perspective, however limited, of which of these aircraft would perform the best. as to your “jap zero fighters or North vietnamese mig-21 pilots who know otherwise”, a purportedly self-righteous asian like you should have recognized that “jap” is a very offensive and demeaning term for a japanese, like “gook” is for your vaunted “North vietnamese” pilots. again, stop with the derrogatory attempts at civilized speech. as to the japanese fighter pilots, their main advantage was in their planes; the A6M Zero design in particular was incredibly lightweight and therefore maneuverable compared to the armored heavy F4F Wildcat and P-40. whatever skilled pilots the Japanese Imperial Army Air Force and Navy had were soon wiped out, as we proceeded to rotate our experienced veteran pilots back to training schools as flying instructors and they did not. so in this case, you’ve contradicted yourself; many times it was American ingenuity that persevered against the technical advantages of the Japanese, not the other way around. and the MiG pilots of North Vietnam, MiG-17, -19, and -21 all, were fighting against disadvantaged American air power that was put under ridiculous ROE requirements and was forbidden from attacking the enemy at the bases. once again, American skill, born of schools like Topgun established for this very purpose, turned an already impressive (relatively, under the circumstances) 3:1 kill ratio into the 12/13:1 ratio trumpeted by documentaries and popular culture. you are right that underestimating a well-prepared adversary is bad, but this is not something the USAF tends to do; rather, it is usually the government. besides, most pilots of most air arms prepare tirelessly for whatever scenario they are likely to face, and there was no underestimation of Iraqi air defenses in Desert Storm, I can tell you that.

as to “F-22s intentionally being kept away from Su-30s”, I have know clue whether that is indeed true; I would not be surprised if it was (I imagine the Pentagon PR department is balancing a worst-case scenario of Su-30s beating F-22s - and the accompanying world mockery, and a best-case scenario of F-22s winning, which at best would not elicit a peep from the world community; it is very similar to discrimination in athletics - when a boy beats a girl, it is nothing to shout about, but when a girl beats a boy, woe be unto the boy). i thank your children for their service to our country, and i wish you would not impune my own relations, who have served this nation in the past themselves. I have never contradicted you when it comes to the need for adaptation in the newest generations to survive and advance in this geopolitically radical world; indeed, many times I have said the same thing myself, usually after observing with disgust many of my own classmates. but I do object to your labeling “Islamic” the threat the world faces; this is a subjective opinion, and not necessarily ture, nor is it fair. i know many nice muslims, and throughout the world there are muslims disgusted with the radical fundamentalism they see manifesting itself as terrorism. this fundamentalism, i assume, is what you were actualy referring to, and in that i agree it is a threat. but no more so than biological homogenization, chemical-biological-nuclear proliferation, global warming, etc. besides, from Islam’s point of view, the Christian West is to blame for the imperfections of the world, so in my opinion the real culprit is organized religion. but that’s another topic…

f14
did not expect words of wisdom from an idiot
retardo
aschlock
u are stupid if u think muslims love u
aschlock
they HATE what your stupid society thinks
60 thousand indians have died fighting this |ISLAMIC movement
and many more will
u jackasses dont know what is coming
the israelis, indians and russkies KNOW
retards and mentally retards like u who believe your weak and meek christian values will win over these ISLAMIC attacks are wishful ducks
in a duck shoot
when u guys are neutralized by this islamic scourge
we will survive
u know my grand dad said
“if a muslim swears as many times as a mustard seed were to stick to your forearm after u dipped your forearm in honey and then into a mass of mustard seeds, then do not believe”
WE do not believe
so, like our israeli and russki compatriots we will fight and destroy them
irrespective what dickos (penises) like u believe
becoz u do NOT count
people like u need to disappear
into islam

wow, never noticed blueson, I’m blind… last gun kill was probably Israeli, they’re the pilots with the most recent comprehensive fighter experience, and i think they made a gun kill with an F-15… blueson makes sound points. generally, when you fly, you have a wingman or two who’s supposed to cover your ass, but generally pilots try not to find themselves in “sitting duck situations (like after a Cobra) unless they can quickly convert and regain lost energy. as the Israelis say, “Speed is life.” i imagine any modern-day furball would be a massacre for both sides…

geezus, anoop, i try being civilized and you still don’t get it. obviously you, being Indian (and Hindu, i presume, or at least oriented against Muslim Pakistan) would have a certain bias against any Muslims, and i can understand that. but my consideration only goes so far, and if you look at this thread, you’ll see that whenever you’re confronted with facts proving you wrong or contradicting your evidence, you automatically revert to insults and never mention what any of us have said to contradict you. what do you have to say now about your Japanese or MiG pilots who know better about the USAF? throughout the past year you’ve called me an idiot, retard, jackass, asshole, etc. and i have never responded in kind. then you started attacking my family. so here’s a new question for you: what is wrong with you? do you feel inferior or something? sane, reasonable people don’t randomly attack other people’s intelligence without due cause, and so far none of us have been unreasonable in dealing with you. but you continue to insult us and our intelligence without even answering our rebuttals. think about it…

as to what you’ve been saying about Muslims, i never said they “loved” me, just that most of them don’t care either way and would be fine coexisting. some of them don’t agree with our societal quirks, and we don’t agree with some of theirs. and I AM NOT CHRISTIAN and I won’t stand for being accused thereof. religion is evil in my opinion because it is political religion that is causing the messes we have in the world. there will be no Islamic scourge, not if anyone can help it, because it is not ISLAM that is attacking us, it is some greedy fundamentalist idealistic bad guys with some very strong dedication to cause. they’re not anywhere near approaching the devotion of, say, the Irish terrorist groups back in the 60s, 70s, but their willingness to kill and devastate for a deity is obviously not something most Muslims espouse. i’d refrain from saying so again. Islam is just like Christianity, Judaism, and many other world religions in terms of belief systems and backgrounds, and all of them are pretty much hypocrites, but that has nothing to do with the fundamentalism we’re seeing now. no, most muslims, i’m sure, are just like the rest of us.

please refrain from wildly generalizing and insulting others again. this is supposed to be an intellectual exchange, not some racist mosh pit. i mean it.

and this
American, French and South Korean aircrews are getting a close look at one of the world’s fabled aircraft - the Indian air force’s Su-30MKI strike fighter.

An Indian air force group of 50 pilots and weapon systems officers - flying eight Su-30MKIs, two Il-78 tankers and an Il-76 transport - are just finishing a month-long deployment to the United States with a training cycle at the latest, annual Red Flag aerial combat excercises based at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

They were part of a contingent of 246 IAF personnel selected from 20 (fighter) Squadron, Poona; 78 (tanker) Squadron, Agra; 44 (transport) Squadron, Nagpur, and a special operations team trained for combat search and rescue, says Group Captain Dee Choudhry.

Of great interest to observers - and no doubt to U.S. intelligence - was the Su-30MKI’s Russian-made, long-range radar and AA-12 Adder air-to-air missile capability. In fact, foreign air force officials admit that they suspect that intelligence gathering goes on at an event like Red Flag.

India’s Su-30MKI aircraft offers an especially attractive target. It carries the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design NIIP-BARS radar that so far has only been seen on the MKI. But it’s considered a variant of what NIIP developed for Russia’s new Su-35 multi-role aircraft and what it’s working on for the next-generation PAK-FA fifth-generation stealth fighter.

One long-time military analyst mused to Aviation Week that the event might provide insight, although it was no certainty. “I’ll bet your [intelligence] boys hovered up every little squiggly amp from BARS. [Yet] sometimes the [radar’s] training mode is just a software package that emulates the radar transmissions, but it’s actually not emitting.”

Indeed, to observers’ dismay, and no doubt to that of the U.S. intelligence community, the IAF flew with a number of handicaps, some of them self-imposed, some not.

Their powerful Russian-made radar was, in fact, emitting, says Choudhry, but operating only in the training mode which limited all its range and spectrum of capabilities. In addition, the IAF wasn’t allowed to use chaff and flares to avoid being targeted by surface-to-air missiles nor did its aircraft have the common data link. CDL brings a flow of targeting information into the cockpit displays that improves the accuracy and speed of data transfer and eliminates the need for most communications. The Indian air crews had to rely on voice communications which slowed the process and limited situational awareness.

Despite its limitations, the Su-30MKI’s radar was able enough to allow the IAF’s Sukhois to participate in a beyond-visual-range fight with U.S. aggressor aircraft carrying simulated AA-10C air-to-air missiles. Because there were so many foreign aircraft capable of offensive counter-air/escort missions (including French Rafales and South Korean F-15Ks), the Sukhois are flying fewer air-to-air missions than Indian team members had hoped, Choudhry says.

“It was almost what we expected,” Choudhry says. “Because we couldn’t use our chaff and flares, when we were targeted by SAMs we were shot down. And there was no picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the workload on the [aircrews] was very high.” Nonetheless, “We came a long way. We trained hard. And the degree of difficulty was not unexpected.”

Photo showing Indian Air Force support conducting post-flight maintenance on an SU-30 Fighter following a Red Flag mission at Nellis Air Force Base on Aug. 13 by USAF Airman 1st Class Ryan Whitney.)

We have yet to see the full strategic impact of the Su-30 proliferating in the nearer and wider region. India and the PRC will not have most of their Sukhoi force structures deployed until 2015 or later, and it is unclear how many Sukhois both Malaysia and Indonesia will ultimately operate. In the near term, both Indonesia and China will have difficulties with fully exploiting the aircraft as they have steep learning curves to climb in training and support - India and Malaysia are apt to fare much better with Western based training systems. We can expect to see regional users of the Su-30 maturing their capabilities to use the aircraft in the latter part of this decade. Much has been said about the PRC’s difficulties in recruiting and training competent Sukhoi drivers - with a population base of over a billion it is however only a matter of time before they learn to do this properly. The view widely held in some Canberra circles that Asia’s air forces will remain at current proficiency levels is not supportable in the longer term.

Much has been made of the serviceability and support problems experienced by the IAF and the PLA-AF with their initial Sukhoi aircraft, indeed the Indian government audit public report listed a litany of contractual problems and Su-30K/MK servicabilities as low as 50% in 2003. These problems should been seen in the proper context as they represent the transient state experienced when introducing a radically new piece of technology and supporting systems. The Sukhois are a generation beyond the MiG-29 Fulrcums flown by the IAF and two generations ahead of the 1950s technology which makes up the backbone of the PLA-AF. With HAL and Shenyang to perform domestic assembly and part production, in time both nations will have the ability to domestically manufacture high failure rate components, and perform factory/depot deep overhauls. As a result what we see now in the support base for the aircraft will not persist and should not be used as an indicator of the long term supportability of the aircraft. With large fleet sizes even a large proportion of grounded aircraft still leaves strategically significant numbers to cause mayhem with.

Another factor in time will be the availability of third party Indian and Chinese made spares to other Sukhoi users in the region. Bottlenecks in the supply of Russian made spares may not persist past 2010 since the commercial incentives to bypass Russian suppliers are considerable - and many regional Sukhois will use substantial fractions of Western avionic hardware. In time we can expect to see more bilateral deals, of the ilk seen between India and Malaysia for MiG-29 support, emerging between regional players and this will change the support environment seen by smaller regional users of the aircraft. With four sources of spare component supply rather than one - Irkut, KNAAPO, HAL and Shenyang lines and subcontractor pools - market forces will have their impact. To assume that historical case studies of Russian aircraft support will be representative of the longer term future in this region is arguably to misunderstand the developing dynamic across the region. The era of Cold War technology monopolies is long gone - only the US can sustain such due its commanding lead in stealth, propulsion and computing technologies. This model is not a valid one for assessing the longer term regional situation in Russian and third party hardware.

The Su-30s are ‘honest’ 700 nautical mile radius class fighters, with plenty of combat gas to burn at shorter radii. This provides all of the Sukhoi operators with a much larger air defence footprint than we have ever seen before. India is now taking delivery of its six Il-78 Midas tankers and will be able to robustly project their Sukhoi force well beyond their borders - China ordered six Il-78MKKs in late 2005.

Even without a proper tanking capability, lesser regional players have the option of buddy refuelling Su-30s with the UPAZ hose/drogue pod - at the expense of half of the force committed to tanking sorties. On a buddy refuelling sortie the shooter gains around 200-250 nautical miles of radius - yielding a radius very close to 1,000 nautical miles. With a 200 nautical miles class standoff missile such as a 3M-54E or Kh-41 variant, both advertised on Sukhois, this provides a limited strike capability beyond a 1,000 nautical miles radius. While such a strike refuelling technique is not viable for sustained high intensity operations, it is feasible for nasty pinprick raids against very high value assets, such as airfields, petrochemical/gas plants, shipping, aircraft carriers and other targets the destruction of which could be highly politically embarrassing to the victim.

What this means in practical terms is that Su-30 users will have the potential to contest airspace up to 500 nautical miles or further from their runways, and launch limited strikes out to around a 1,000 nautical miles radius. While the latter is not the kind of heavy iron 1,000 nautical mile radius capability Australia possesses in its F-111 fleet, it is nevertheless enough capability to cause considerable mayhem, if used cleverly.

In the longer term the Sukhoi will have several strategic effects. The first is that it will provide its users with the ability to threaten or intimidate neighbours with lesser capabilities, if they fall within the footprint of the Sukhoi. The second is that the US Navy’s CVBGs will lose much of their ability to intimidate by gunboat diplomacy - the ability to threaten a CVBG with a mixed package of shooter and escort Su-27/30s to radii essentially greater than that of the F/A-18E/F and JSF mix on a carrier deck drives up the risk for the US Navy in a nasty political stand-off. Unless the US is prepared to take the gloves off early in a dispute and deploy the F-22A centric US Air Force Global Strike Task Force, the US Navy may cease to be a viable tool for coercive diplomacy.

Even for the US Air Force the Su-30 presents some interesting challenges, since it has the radius to threaten both tankers and large ISR platforms in a shooting contest. While the F-22A would deal with the Sukhois quickly and effectively, in many scenarios the Sukhois could create genuine complications by forcing a relatively high ratio of F-22A escort sorties to F-22A strike sorties, thus diminishing the strike sortie rate - a major issue for the dual role tasked F-22A fleet.

Another factor to consider is the ongoing proliferation of advanced guided munitions and other hardware produced by competing Russian vendors. Just as we have seen Irkut and KNAAPO competing in the sales of Sukhois, we have seen a wide range of Russian weapon makers like Vympel, Zvezda, Raduga and others selling their products across the accessible market. Many of these products incorporate modern Western digital COTS technology, an example being the upgraded second generation 9B-1103M active radar seeker for the Vympel R-27A/EA missile, which is built around a Texas Instruments TMS320C44 digital signal processor chip and achieves a 25% acquisition range improvement over the baseline seeker, derived from the R-77’s first generation 9B-1348E - a second generation ‘9B-1348ME’ will almost certainly carry the same TMS320C44 digital signal processor.

Some of the air-surface weapons being offered for the Sukhois are genuinely capable. The Raduga Kh-41 Moskit (3M-80/82 SS-N-22 Sunburn) has been integrated on the Sukhois’ centreline station (Su-33) and is considered to be one of the most lethal supersonic sea skimming anti-ship weapons in existence. The NPO Soyuz/Turayevo TKMB ramjet powered Mach 4 class Zvezda-Strela Kh-31 (AS-17 Krypton) is offered on Sukhoi variants, both in the active radar anti-shipping A model (PLA-N) and anti-radiation P model (PLA-AF). The latest advertised Kh-31 variant includes a dual mode air-air seeker, incorporating an active radar seeker and passive anti-radiation seeker, optimised for engaging ‘nonmaneuvering airborne targets such as AWACS’ out to 100 nautical miles. Both the supersonic OKB-52 P-800/3K-55/3M-55/Kh-61 Yakhont / Brahmos (SS-N-26) and Novator 3M-54 Club (SS-N-27) have been publicly discussed as options for the Sukhoi fighters, especially the Su-34 series, but it is unclear whether any integration work has taken place to date.

Cruise missiles integrated on or proposed for the Flanker (Author).

For strikes against land targets, the 1,500 lb class Molniya Kh-29 (AS-14 Kedge) is available in television (Kh-29T), thermal imaging contrast lock homing (Kh-29D) and semi-active laser homing (Kh-29L) variants - the weapon is a direct equivalent to the very effective French Aerospatiale AS.30 series, with the television and thermal imaging guided variant seeker equivalent to the AGM-65 Maverick series. The smaller semi-active laser homing S-25LD and Zvezda Kh-25ML (AS-12 Kegler) are also on offer. An equivalent to the RAAF’s AGM-142 is available in the 2,000 lb class 50 nautical mile range turbojet sustained Raduga Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo), which uses a conceptually similar TV/datalink guidance scheme, using an APK-9 Tekon datalink guidance pod carried on the left inlet pylon. An anti-radiation variant, the Kh-59 (AS-13 Kingbolt) is available but has not been advertised on the Sukhoi - the newer Kh-31R series appearing to be favoured by the market.

GNPP KAB-500 and KAB-1500 guided bombs (Author)

The Russians are also actively marketing guided bomb kits for the Sukhoi fighters. The KAB-500L is a direct equivalent to the GBU-16 using the 27N series laser seeker, the KAB-500Kr is equivalent to a TV contrast lock guided 1,000 lb GBU-8 HOBOS fitted with a bunker busting or fuel air explosive warhead. The KAB-1500 is a family of guidance kits for 3,000 lb class dumb bombs, available with unitary or bunker busting warheads. The KAB-1500L is a semi-active laser homing kit, the KAB-1500TK a TV command link guided kit analogous to the GBU-15 but 50% bigger, and the KAB-1500Kr a TV contrast lock guided system. Either three of the 1,500 kg weapons, or six of the 500 kg weapons can be carried by an Su-27/30 with suitable avionics.

Su-27SKM loadout (Sukhoi).

Su-30MK loadout (Sukhoi).

To date most regional users have invested in Sukhois primarily to provide air superiority capabilities. The availability of a wide range of competitively priced Russian guided weapons is likely to result over time in an increasing broadening of the role of regional Sukhoi fleets. The principal impediment to the wider use of Russian laser guided bombs has been a shortage of good targeting pods - with suitable laser coding modifications third party pods are likely to evolve to fill this niche over the next decade. The impact of the US GBU-12 in Afghanistan and Iraq will not have gone unnoticed.

The television guided KAB-500Kr and KAB-1500Kr kits are also worth closer scrutiny, since they provide a fire-and-forget capability very similar to the long retired GBU-8, or a GBU-15 used in lock-on-before-launch mode - highly accurate and devoid of the need for a targeting pod. With the potential for a pre-programmed scene matching correlation capability (ie pre-loading the bomb with a digitised target image not unlike the early Tomahawk DSMAC), a technology the Russians do have, this presents the prospect of a JDAM like capability to attack multiple aimpoints on a single pass, albeit daylight limited. The large volume of the KAB series seekers would easily permit a lot of evolutionary growth in the design, and low cost commodity processing chips and QWIP thermal imagers would facilitate this. It is likely that we will see more of this family of bomb seekers in time.

For Australia the Su-30 presents the prospect of a more difficult to defend sea-air gap. While we might choose to argue ad nauseam as to whether a future Indonesian regime might opt to get into a fight with Australia, or debate the likelihood of PLA-AF Sukhois being based in the northern apporaches at a future date, or debate India’s future role in the near region, the stark reality is that the tyranny of distance which has protected Australia for decades is being rapidly eroded by developing capabilities across the region.

In this context the 2002 JSF decision, and ongoing lobbying for F/A-18E/F interim fighters, seem both to be quite incongruous. Neither aircraft offers a decisive capability margin against the Su-30 series, especially longer term as the sensors, avionics and weapons evolve in the Sukhois and regional players acquire AEW&C aircraft and other supporting capabilities.

Indeed, one idea popular in some Canberra circles seems to be that the RAAF is now less needed and should be downsized to save money since Indonesia is in a state of chaos and all the RAAF is needed to do is participate in the odd US coalition force - of course if anything goes really bad in our neighbourhood the US will instantly assist!

This is a particularly lame argument insofar as the US Air Force is badly stretched with worldwide commitments, and is having genuine difficulties with a poorly ageing tanker and fighter fleet - in a crisis the US may not be in the position to deploy sufficient assets quickly enough, even if the then incumbent US administration wants to do so. There is of course no guarantee that a future US leadership group will have the kind of relationship with Australia which we observe today. The Americans may not solve their block obsolescence problems until later in the next decade, leaving a genuine window of strategic vulnerability should the more vocal proponents of RAAF capability reduction have their way in Canberra.

The belief in some Canberra circles that the JSF will somehow solve all of the RAAF’s force structure problems does not stand up to scrutiny, in the light of the known capabilities and demonstrated growth potential of the Sukhoi Su-30 which is rapidly becoming the ’standard’ fighter across the region. Similarly the belief that F/A-18E/F interim fighters will somehow address the capability gap in the F/A-18A HUG fleet is hard to accept. The belief that the F-111’s heavyweight counter-air strike capability is now irrelevant also conflicts with the reality that the best way to fight an Su-30 without an F-22A is to shut down its basing from day one of a conflict - and if possible convert the Sukhois to scrap metal in situ - neither achievable with a handful of standoff missile shots.

Strategy has always been a game of positional advantage, and in the modern age this positional advantage lies largely in air power. If Australia is to retain its relative strategic position in the region it must start thinking realistically about its long term force structure and abandon the quick fix panacea solution mindset which seems to be so prominent in the current Canberra defence debate. There are no quick or cheap fixes in this game.

The Australian Air Force conducted a simulated dogfight between Russia’s Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker fighter and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II military strike fighter. The Russian warplane scored a decisive victory.
A custom-made software package featured average Su-30 specifications and parameters because several modified versions are currently exported elsewhere.
The computer game was ordered by the United States, which wants to sell its F-35s worth $16 billion to Australia. The US side wanted to convince the Australians that the F-35, a descendant of the hard-hitting F-4 Phantom, would completely outmaneuver and outgun the Su-30, which is very popular in this region.

However, the F-35 suffered an ignominious defeat, after the Su-30 virtually tore it to pieces. The Australians said the Russian plane massacred its US rival like a baby seal.

Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered a complete reassessment of the F-35’s combat effectiveness, the national press said.
Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada recently hosted the Red Flag 2008 exercise involving fighters from India, France, South Korea and Singapore and a British AWACS early-warning plane. Eight Su-30MKIs refuelled in mid-air, while crossing the Atlantic Ocean enroute to Nevada.

The Indian squadron was escorted by US RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft which recorded their radio codes and radar frequencies. Other technical reconnaissance systems monitored the Su-30MKIs during the entire exercise.

The United States is very interested in the Su-30MKI’s N-011-M Bars radar increasing its impressive combat potential. The Su-35 Flanker, now being adopted by the Russian Air Force, has similar radar.

India’s Headlines Today news channel said the Indian Air Force’s high command and the Indian delegation that has returned from the United States, would discuss the incident in great detail.

for once, anoop has delivered damn good material! your links are, for the most part, accurate; BVR capabilities for both Russian and American hardware are as of yet unknown or untested, and clearly nothing useful can be gained from examining American victories over “blind, defenseless” MiG-29s in Iraq and Kosovo. however, the last link (”Russian Fighter defeats US Fifth-Generaton Warplane”) spouted some blatant errors. For one, the F-35 is a development of the F-4 as much as the Su-30 is a development of the Su-7. For another, this merely confirms what I’ve been saying all along; the F-35 JSF is a worthless flying turd that sacrifices potential and capability for cost, stealth, and STOVL; it lacks the sophisticated systems of the F-22, and to be useful in a tactical situation must use external stores, totally defeating the purpose of stealth. it also is obviously not as maneuverable as a Flanker, nor can it carry as much. clearly, Australia unfairly pitted the JSF against the vastly superior Su-35, which seems to me like an insult to the Flanker, to have to stoop so low to prove its worth. whoever ordered the wargame (be it at Lockheed Martin or the “Puzzle Palace”) is probably out of a job now. as to Australia’s warped defense attitude (cutting budget and acquisitions, making stupid assumptions), that same attitude is at work throughout the world; everywhere, that is, except in Russia and China.

I have been away for quite some time. From what I see there are a lot stuff here. Taking into account the latest developements concerning the the sukhoi series especially the SU-35BM which is officially the latest version of the aircraft in production (or really close) i saw some puzzling points. The first is that the aircraft does not incorporate canards any more. The second is what the Russians say that the new aircraft has relaxed strability compared to the previous design. Does anyone know why the Russians removed the canards? I believe that the canards are extremely important as extra lift providers in high angles of attack and as extra air brakes for tight turns. To me it would be more usefull to move the canards forwards closer to the nose like in the EF-2000, as this was the situation discusssed previously. The second thing is about relaxed stability does anyone know how did they do it? I think that they moved the center of gravity of the airplane backwards and increased drag for making the air frame more susceptible to high yaws, but i am not sure.
One more thing in todays wvr dog fights (except of course for the pilot) it is the helmet aiming devices, the missiles with high off boresight capabilities and tvc the factors that will determine the outcome. The F-35 is a major x-factor. I believe that this aircraft has a number of inherently designed flaws. First the stealth capability is achieved due to the RAM materials used (both metals surfaces and paints)which is greatly reduced over time and use (rains tend to remove the paint from the fuselage). Therefore in order to retain the stealth element the plane has to undergo frequent maintenance in NATO facilities in Italy and Germany. The problem is that the Americans will not allow any one to tamper with those materials which means that only US staff will perform the maintenance.This by its own is a huge disadvantage for the plane. The air force which will deploy this aircraft will be highly dependent by US decisions concerning the usage of the plane by the USA. For the technical aspects i believe that the intented use of this aircraft was more of a strike nature and not a dog fighter (the first technical specifications mentioned a 70-30 ground to air performance ratio (the JAST Project which led to the JSF Program X-32(RESEMBLING A FUTURISTIC A-7) VS X-35 (RESEMBLING A ONE ENGINE F-22) which was later altered due to the protests of the other countries which were participating to the program to 60-40). The US thaught that the F-22 would have swept away all aerial threats and thereofre the F-35 would have to face only the remnants of the opposing air force. Of course this ideal situation would not apply for the other air forces who would only have the F-35. Therefore we have a plane of limitted combat persistence with a number of comprimsing features inhereted on its design (the air combat capabilities are affected by its design, no canards, no lerx but many smoothed surfaces and reduced wing area high -wing loading- i wonder how it will fair at high angles of attack) and much inferior electronics to the F-22. So what is the point in buying this? Politics the F-16 and other third generation fighters will not be supported in the next 10-15 years so the NATO Allies will be forced to climb to the new type. Big money for the US industry. Does anybody have specific techical details as far as drag, wing loading and thrust to weight and by pass ratio? The ones i have are taken from the 2005 tests.
For the record after 15 years i would put my money in to the UCAV planes. Imagine the damage a combination of fighters and UCAV would have on the enemy air force, but that is another story

not sure of its accuracy… but sounds like the “cobra” hasn’t been Russian-only since the ’60s…

glad to see you back, LordBill, it was getting lonely with only anoop… i totally agree about the X-35, but UCAS-D is a rather new and expensive project… just a caution, because in all likelihood its full potential won’t be explored for some time…

as to canards, I do know they tend to be maitenance intensive, because of all the G-forces inflicted on them (look at the F-14A)

anoop, for one we agree with you, so shut up about the F-35 being owned by the Sukhoi, we pretty much said as much a year ago! and no, the Su-30MKI Mk4 won’t take down the F-22 so easily; haven’t we just been arguing about pilot skill being the SUPREME factor? and no way the Flanker’s avionics are up to the systems of the Raptor…

f-14
the mki does NOT have russki avionics
israeli, french, russki and indian jobs
no country on earth CAN EQUAL THIS
the best of the best sir
the usaf has no idea of the capabilities of this steed
except if it meets it in real combat
and i think they knew this when red flags organized the su30mki show
keep the f22 away
coz a humiliating loss to this unknown factor will not only cost us our own contract but seal for ever any potential foreign contract
i.e. one piece of over-cost f-22 = 3 mkis
6 missiles per carrier v/s 36 for 3
the math is obvious
consider the new irbis aesa for mk4 su30mkis and the new novator ks-172s
also, any awacs cover for the f22s will be blown out of the sky way before bvs combat is entertained
if the f22 switches on its own radar — it is owned
as for the usaf pilots– mathematically challenged, over sized, over weight and over there!!!
lol

then who makes the avionics? the Raptor is ahead of the Su-30 MKI in terms of systems, one of the factors involved in its mushrooming cost.

and I basically said as much earlier about F-22s vs. Su-30s at Red Flag: “I imagine the Pentagon PR department is balancing a worst-case scenario of Su-30s beating F-22s - and the accompanying world mockery”; it’s because the Pentagon would be gambling too much loss versus very little gain.

how will AWACS be blown away? they have their own escorts, you know, and those could very well end up being F-22s in a potential situation! and “switching on radar” goes for any aircraft, not just the Raptor. and it’s Americans, not USAF pilots, that are overweight, etc.

Sukhoi 30 with its new engine refit will kill all but the
f-22 at long-range, due to the f22’s larger radar array. But even an improved anti-radiation missile for su30 could even this up. The undisputed king of the skies is the SU-37. Sustained supersonic speeds at high-altitude with 80-100 mile standoff radius against adversary. It is far faster and vastly more maneuverable than the F-22 and certainly superior against any F-35A. Only problem for Russians is they apparently can’t afford to buy too many Sukhoi 37’s for their own Air Force. See my pids link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/31689951@N05/

o reply to the idiot who said the British did the “tough” missions during the Gulf War,I was a pathfinder ,82nd Airborne,and our close air support came from A-10’s and Apache Helicopters.When we were hunting Scud sites,our Air Suppport came from Navy f-18’s from the USS Independance.

Hello people…. To answer your question about the Indian Su’s avionics… they are a mix of Russian, French and Israeli systems. To Anoop, around 40% of the avionics in the F-22 are built by BAE Systems and their American subsidiaries, as is the case with the F-35 as well. I was not aware that only the US allowed RAM maintenance to be carried out by USAF techs. This poses a major question about F-35 serviceability for the RAF and Royal Navy… Also, there are now fairly credible reports that the Navy is starting to look at a navalised Typhoon as an alternative to the F-35B. This would necessitate a change in the design of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales to rid them of the ski jump ramps (needing catapults instead), but would make sense in the way of procuring E-2Ds for a credible fleet AWACS capability instead of the Sea King ASaC 7s the Navy flies

Let me start off by saying that the Typhoon is nowhere on the radar screen in comparison to the F-22 and Su-37 (sorry for the accidental pun), and that in direct comparison, the Su-37 would win in a solid dogfight. Why? Well sit down and listen sonny. The direction that Sukhoi was going in when they designed the 37 and it’s predecessors was that superior handling, speed, and practicality, would win on the battlefield, and would more than make up for the lack of new stealth technology. I for one agree with them. Every time you see a special on tv of aviation through the ages or something like that, the people and soldiers are always seen exulting the Raptor because of it’s stealth or “superior maneuverability”. True, the F-22 has thrust-vectoring engines, but so does the the Su-37. Also, since the Terminator doesn’t have the restriction of retaining a shape that must conform to stealth, it can use the traditional hardpoints instead of the space-consuming compartments that put more weight on the fuselage and usurp room that could be used for an enhanced radar or targeting system. So there you go, the Su-37 would beat the F-22 ANY day of the week. The dude has spoken.

10 x SU’s are spotted on a radar, heading towards a target. 2 x F-22’s are scrambled. They detect the SU’s and shoot them down without the SU pilots even seeing them. Anyone for tennis?

2 x F-22’s are heading towards a target. They shoot the target before anyone even knows what is happening, let alone has the chance to scramble some 4.5 generation fighters to intercept (fruitless task anyway).

For all the talk that goes on here - ask yourself this - and answer honestly.

If you had to get in one of those planes and go on life-threatening mission, which would you chose? Honestly? Not which looks best / most exotic / one you liked flying on your PC game / one your country makes.

I would pick the most advanced plane without a doubt, giving me the highest chance of survival. The F-22 is the most advanced.

And all this talk of Britain versus US etc. Come on for christ sake. We both need each other and we are both lucky to have each other.

hotrod
i know where the electornics come from: read my posting again
as for the rest…

Cockpit

The SU-30MKI employs extensive use of Sextant Avionique (now Thales Avionics) components in the cockpit. A total of 6 LCDs, 5 MFD-55s and 1 MFD-66 for displaying information and accepting commands are used. The six LCDs have a wide-screen, offer image-superimposing and are shielded to make them readable even in bright sunlight. All the flight information is displayed on these four LCD displays which include one for piloting and navigation, a tactical situation indicator, and two for display systems information including operating modes and overall operation status. The cockpit also retains some traditional dial displays as standbys.

There is some confusion regarding the HUD. While reports say MKI has VEH-3000 series Holographic HUD from Sextant Avionique, photographic evidence suggests Elbit Systems’ SU 967. SU 967 has been designed for large cockpit fighter/attack aircraft and features a 28 degree FOV.

The aircraft is fitted with a satellite navigation system (A-737 GPS compatible), which permits it to make flights in all weathers; day and night. The navigation complex comprises of Thales Totem Inertial Directional System (INS) and short and long range radio navigation systems. It also has a laser attitude and a heading reference system. An automatic flight control system makes all phases of its flight automatic, including the combat employment of its weapons. Once the automatic flight control system receives information from the navigation system, it solves the route flight tasks - involving a flight over the programmed waypoints, the return to the landing airfield, making a pre-landing maneuver and the approach for landing down to an altitude of 60 meters, as well as uses the data supplied from the weapons control and radio guidance command systems to direct the aircraft to the target and accomplish the attack.

Front (left) and Rear (Right) cockpits

The communications equipment comprises secure VHF and HF radio sets, a secured digital telecommunications system, and antenna-feeder assembly. It mounts an automatic noise-proof target data exchange system, which provides for coordination of the actions of several fighter aircraft engaged in a group air combat. The voice radio communication with ground control stations and between aircraft is possible up to a range of 1,500 km in the Su-27SK, and the Su-30MKI should equal it if not better this. The Integrated Information System (IIS) allows the performance of a ground serviceability test of the entire equipment and the location of troubles to an individual plug-in unit. In case of an in-flight failure, the indicator of the integrated information system will provide the pilot with a text message about the failure and recommendations on how to correct it or will dictate further actions. The message is also duplicated by voice.

A two-pilot crew provides higher work efficiency (thanks to distribution of the aircraft handling and armament control functions) as well as the engagement in close and long range combats and the air situation observation. Besides, the same dual control aircraft can be used as a combat and training aircraft. Additionally, the integrated air-borne equipment enables the aircraft to be used as an air command post to control the operation of other aircraft.

In practice, the front seater is the pilot and the back seater is the “Wizzo”, the WSO (Weapons Systems Operator). The pilot flies the aircraft and handles air-to-air and some ATG weapons, as well as countermeasures. The WSO takes care of the detailed aspects of navigation, ground radar mapping & target designation, setting up delivery solution for ATG weapons, designating for guided bombs/missiles, ECM, and so on. There are many tasks which overlap; either pilot or WSO can do the job depending on circumstances.

The crew are provided zero-zero KD-36DM ejection seats which have a slightly modified comm/oxygen interface block compared to the Su-27. Rear seat is raised for better visibility. The cockpit will be provided with containers to store food and water reserves, a waste disposal system and increased amounts of oxygen. The KD-36DM ejection seat is inclined at 30º, to help the pilot resist aircraft accelerations in air combat.
Flight Control and Other Avionics

For flight control, reliability and survivability, the aircraft has a FBW with quadruple redundancy. Depending on the flight conditions, signals from the control stick position transmitter or the automatic FCS will be coupled to the remote control amplifiers. Upon updating, depending on the flight speed and altitude, these signals are combined with feedback signals fed by acceleration sensors and rate gyros. The resultant control signals are coupled to the high-speed electro-hydraulic actuators of the stabilizers, rudders and the canard. For greater reliability, all the computers work in parallel. The output signals are compared and, if the difference is significant, the faulty channel is disconnected.

An important part of the FBW is based on a stall warning and barrier mechanism with an individual drive of its own. It prevents development of aircraft stalls through a dramatic increase in the control stick pressure. This allows a pilot to effectively control the aircraft without running the risk of reaching the limit values of AoA and acceleration. The stall control is accomplished by the computer of a signal limiting system, depending on the configuration and loading of the aircraft. The same system sends voice and visual signals, as the aircraft nears a stall condition.

An oft criticised aspect of Russian aircraft in general is their ‘poor’ servicebility. This is more of a perception, and in capable hands they can return more than satisfactory performance. The Su-30MKI does add some new features regarding this, including self-diagnostic software that will indeed make life a lot easier for the airmen!

For acquiring predictive maintenance capability, the IAF and Rosoboronexport FSUE have joined forces with South Africa ’s Aerospace Monitoring And Systems (Pty) Ltd (AMS). Predictive maintenance means the on- and off-board processing of aircraft sub-systems data, resulting in an accurate, conclusive indication of the health and usage status of various airborne systems. The Su-30MKI Mk3’s on-board health-and-usage monitoring system (HUMS) not only monitors almost every aircraft system and sub-system, including the avionics sub-systems, it can also act as an engineering data recorder. For the Su-30MKI Mk3, AMS was contracted for providing total HUMS solutions, starting with definition of the IAF’s qualitative requirements, followed by systems provision (development and implementation), integration and support phases.

Methods have since been co-developed by AMS and the IAF for the following:

The Su-30MKI contains not only Russian, French, South African and Israeli Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE), but also a substantial percentage of Indian designed and manufactured avionics. They took six years to develop from start to MKI. Advanced avionics were developed by DRDO under a project code named “Vetrivale” (a Tamil name for the victorious lance carried by the youthful Lord Karthikeya or Murugan, a son of Parvati and Shiva) in close collaboration with the PSUs and the IAF. Indian avionics have been received and acknowledged enthusiastically by the Russian principals.

The 32-bit Mission Computer performs mission-oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration-cum-redundancy management and in-flight systems self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for the mission computer’s software. The other DARE-developed product, the Tarang Mk2 (Tranquil) radar warning receiver, is manufactured by state-owned BEL at its Bangalore facility.

These avionics equipment have also been certified for their airworthiness in meeting the demanding standards of Russian military aviation. The cumulative value of such indigenous avionic equipment is estimated to exceed Rs. 250 lakhs per aircraft. Since the core avionics were developed by a single agency (DRDO) - they have significant commonality of hardware and software amongst them using a modular approach to design. This obviously results in major cost and time savings in development; it also benefits the user in maintenance and spares inventories.

The DRDO has gone a step further and come out with a new design of the Core Avionics Computer (CAC) which can be used with a single module adaptation across many other aircraft platforms. Thus the CAC which is derived from the computers designed for the Su-30MKI will now be the centre piece of the avionics upgrades for the MiG-27 and Jaguar aircraft as well. The CAC was demonstrated by DRDO at the Aero India exhibition at Yelahanka and attracted a good deal of international attention. Taken together with the systems already developed indigenously for the LCA (such as the Digital Flight Control Computer and HUD), clearly Indian avionics have a significant export potential in the burgeoning global market for avionics modernisation.

The navigation/weapons systems from the various countries were integrated by Ramenskoye RPKB.
Radar

The forward facing NIIP NO11M Bars (Panther) is a powerful integrated radar sighting system. The N011M is a digital multi-mode dual frequency band radar (X and L Band, NATO D and I). The N011M can function both in air-to-air and air-to-land/sea mode simultaneusly while being tied into a high-precision laser-inertial / GPS navigation system. It is equipped with a modern digital weapons control system as well as anti-jamming features. The aircraft has an opto-electronic surveillance and targeting system which consists of a IR direction finder, laser rangefinder and helmet mounted sight system. The HMS allows the pilot to turn his head in a 90º field of view, lock on to a target and launch the much-feared R-73E missile. The Sura-K HMS for the Su-30MKI has been supplied by the Ukranian Arsenal Company (the same also makes the APK-9 datalink pod for the Kh-59M).

The N011M radar has been under flight testing since 1993, fitted to Su-27M (Su-35) prototype ‘712′. It employs the same level of technology as the now abandoned N014 radar which was to have equipped Mikoyan’s MFI “fifth-generation” fighter and was initiated by Tamerlan Bekirbayev. The nose of the Su-30MKI was modified (compared the Su-27) to accommodate the fixed antenna array and more avionics boxes. The first improved N011M radar for the Su-30MKI was flown on 26-Nov-2000. Note that the N011M is different from the N011 “Mech” radar: the latter is mechanical scanning and equips the No 24 Sqn aircraft.

For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km. A Bars’ earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of detecting Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km. The radar can track 20 air targets and engage the 4 most threatening targets simultaneously (this capability was introduced in the Indian RC1 and RC2). These targets can include cruise/ballistic missiles and even motionless helicopters. For comparison, Phazotron-NIIR’s Zhuk-MS radar has a range of 150-180km against a fighter and over 300km against a warship. “We can count the number of blades in the engine of the aircraft in sight (by the NO11M) and by that determine its type,” NIIP says.

The forward hemisphere is ±90º in azimuth and ±55º in elevation ( /-45 degrees vertical and /-70 degrees horizontal have also been reported). N011M can withstand up to 5 percent transceiver loss without significant degredation in performance.

The Su-30MKI can function as a ‘mini-AWACS’ and can act as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to atleast 4 other aircraft. This feature was first seen in the MiG-31 Foxhound, which is equipped with a Zaslon radar.

Ground surveillance modes include mapping (with Doppler beam sharpening), search & track of moving targets, synthetic aperture radar and terrain avoidance. To penetrate enemy defenses, the aircraft can fly at low altitudes using the terrain following and obstacle avoidance feature. It enables the pilot to independently find his position without help from external sources (satellite navigation, etc.); detect ground targets and their AD systems; choose the best approach route to a target with continuous updates fed to the aircraft navigation systems; and provide onboard systems and armament with targeting data.

According to Sukhoi EDB the Su-30MKI is capable of performing all tactical tasks of the Su-24 Fencer deep interdiction tactical bomber and the Su-27 Flanker A/B/C air superiority fighter while having around twice the combat range and atleast 2.5 times the combat effectiveness.

The N011M offers a quantum leap in technology over the earlier Russian radars. Small ground targets, like tanks, can be detected out to 40-50 km. The MiG-29, Su-27 and other fighters can be provided with a ground strike capability only if their radars can operate in the down-looking mode which generates a map of ground surface on a cockpit display (this mode is called the Mapping Mode).

N011M ensures a 20 m resolution detection of large sea targets at a distance up to 400 km, and of small size ones - at a distance of 120 km. Coupled with the air-launched Brahmos-A AShM, the Su-30MKI will become an unchallanged platform for Anti-Ship duties. The Brahmos is a result of a joint collaboration between India and Russia and is a variant of the Yakhont AShM (which has not entered service).

N011M Bars supplied to the IAF have progressively updated capabilities. Future upgradation plans include new gimbals for the antenna mount to increase the field of view to about 90-100 degrees to both sides. New software will enable a Doppler-sharpening mode and the capability to engage up to eight air targets simultaneously. Additionally the capability of the world-best PJ-10 Brahmos missile will be incorporated. The Air launched version of the missile ‘Brahmos-A’ requires modifications to the airframe due to high weight. As many as three can be carried on the MKI, but only if the weight of the missile can be reduced. Untill then a capability to carry one Brahmos and two Krypton (”mini moskit”) missiles is being worked on.

Enter the Irbis. By 2010, when the first totally-built Su-30MKI will roll out from HAL Nasik, it will be equipped with new, active phased-array airborne radar. Called the Irbis (Snow Leopard), it will replace the NO11M. Both the LRDE and Tikhomirov NIIP are co-developing the Irbis at a cost of US$160 million.
Aircraft Radar Remarks
Su-30MKI Phase-I N011M Mk.1

The Su-30MKI combat load is mounted on 12 stations. The maximum advertised combat load is 8000 kg (17,600 lbs). All compatible Russian/Soviet AAMs and AGMs are available to the IAF, which infact has quite a large variety of these weapons. The RVV-AE is not being inducted into the Russian Air Force but have been bought by the IAF. The aircraft features the built-in single-barrel GSh-301 gun (30 mm calibre, 150 rounds).

Over 70 versions of guided and unguided weapon stores may be employed, which allows the aircraft to fly the most diverse tactical missions. Speculation is that the Su-30 can also carry a tactical nuclear payload, though only Jaguar and Mirage aircraft are known to be equipped for the role thus far.
Official Sukhoi Literature - GENERAL description

The laser-optical locator system is advertised to include a day and night FLIR capability and is used in conjunction with the Helmet mounted sighting system. The Laser Guided Munitions will be employed in conjunction with the Rafael Litening pod. The APK-9 datalink pod is associated with the Kh-59ME.

The OLS-27 (Izdeliye 36Sh) is a combined IRST/LR device for the Su-27, similar to the MiG-29’s KOLS but more sophisticated, using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor. Tracking rate is over 25deg/sec. 50km range in pursuit engagement, 15km head-on. The laser rangefinder operates between 300-3000m for air targets, 300-5000m for ground targets.

Search limits for the OLS-27 are ±60deg azimuth, 60/-15° in elevation. Three different FOVs are used, 60° by 10°, 20° by 5°, and 3° by 3°. Detection range is up to 50km, whilst the laser ranger is effective from 300-3000m. Azimuth tracking is accurate to 5 secs, whilst range data is accurate to 10m. Targets are displayed on the same CRT display as the radar. Weighs 174kg.

The OLS-30 (36Sh-01), is an improved version of OLS-27 developed by UOMZ with a vibration-proof receiver, micro-cryogenic system, improved service life and new software. Perhaps also has TV channel. Range 90km in pursuit, 40km head-on. Possibly the same as Izdeliye-52Sh.

The Su-37, without a doubt. I do not have the super specifics of the Su-7, however I do know after seeing it live in 1999 and seeing the F-22 live in ‘07 the Su-37 has my vote, and I’m all American. Here is one general comparison I’ve researched:

F-22
6 missiles: 4 AMRAAMS radar beam guidance, 2 Sidewinders. However, the AMRAAMS being radar beam tracking missiles are very advanced, however, upon reaching a closer range to the target all the target aircraft must do is switch off all radar, IFF, comms, or anything radio and quickly move a fair distance out of the way and the AMRAAM is useless.
or
2 sidewinders/sparrows, 2 1,000lb JDAM’s.

30 caliber gatling gun with a “peek-a-boo” hatch at the right wingtip root. Holds 300 rounds, a meek 5-second burst.

two drop tanks (which eliminate the stealth and make a larger RCS than the F-15)

Range: 800-1,000 miles.

engines provide 30,000lbs of thrust each with afterburning capabilities
Can supposedly obtain supersonic speeds and maintain them without an afterburner, HOWEVER, the F-22 I eyewitnessed performed a high speed pass. It could not reach 600mph without using a little bit of afterburner, not much, but still it used it. As far as I’m concerned, F-22 supersonic cruise without burner is a bit exagerated.

Consists of highly advanced classified combat radar, it is unknown as to what type or manufacturer, however it is rumored to beat everything else around (including the 150 mile F-14A-D radar).

Can obtain speeds of mach 2

The maneuverability is OK. Yes, it can pull EXTREMELY tight turns (including the flat turn, a controlled tail stall) and can pull slight “mini cobras” when moving into a tight High-Alpha climb. However, the F-22 cannot effectively cobra or pull a “tailslide” like the Su-37 or Su-30MKI. If the pilot does manage to get it into a vertical position as of the Pugachev Cobra, it is very difficult for the Raptor to stay in the position. Because of the “advanced” avionics, the computer does not want the fighter to stay in that position, and so it tries to corrrect the High-ALpha position. This in turn messes up the whole maneuver. Also, with regaurd to the tight turns, it can pull them, however not as gracefully. Notice the high wing contrails in the tight turns, the jet just doesnt like them. This is due to the fact it is based off of the F-15, zip in, zip out, dont pussyfoot around.

It is also stealth, but not that stealth. When normally flying at the specifically tuned altitude, and the specifically tuned speed, the F-22 will not be visible to a radar installation untill it is within half a mile of it. However, this relys on the PERFECT conditions, which the odds are 1-1million, and increase into the billions in combat situations. Th F-22 relies on speed, radar, and a little bit of RAM. The actuall “stealth” is performed in the briefing room with a bunch of maps and calculators. The only “true” stealth piece of the F-22 (meaning the part of the aircraft that is truly stealth, following after the F-117) is th cockpit canopy.

All in all, the F-22 is just a sleek F-15 with a slightly better radar, slightly more maneuverable, a little bit more stealth than other jets, but still mostly just an ordinary fighter. Its mostly just hype.

Su-37

Missiles, guns, and munitions:
Russian missile types are unknown however total it can hold around 8-12 total.
That is mixed with the different kinds of ordinaces
Heat Seeking short range AA
Radar seeking short range AA
Long Range radar beam AA (similar to the pheonix missiles on the F-14)
Convetional bombing ordinance
500lbs
1,000lbs
2,000lbs
Convetional bomblet cluster bombs
Napalm ordinaces
Air to surface missiles long and short ranged
Drop tanks (can carry up to four at a time)
Also the Su-37 can carrry munitions down the centerline, though this decreases its performance drastically

The two engines (type and manufacturer unknown, will research) each providing 60,000lbs of thrust each. Including 3D thrust vectoring, opposing thrust vectoring, and afterburning capabilities.

range: 1,000-1,500 miles

Can maintain speeds of up to mach 2.

The maneuverablility is AMAZING. Though it doesnt have the “first look first kill” as the raptor, the Su-37 can easily engage and out-maneuver ANY other airplane in existence. Being able to perform kulbits, cobera’s and the new “Frolov Chakra” (the “sumersault” maneuver) the Therminator easily out maneuvers any other craft to date. Yes the F-22 is stealth and can take “1 shot kills” from very long distances, but still, as soon as the missile launched the Su’s would know, and all they would have to do is speed to the F-22. Upon catching sight of the Raptor he Su’s would simply fire their missiles (which, depending on how many Terminators are present, would be anywere from 8-48 AA missiles, plus 600-2400 rounds of ammo and more flight time) and engage in a dogfight in which the F-22 would lose.

Truly, in all but far away shots, the F-22 would lose to the Su-37. This is because the Su-37 uses the same stealth tactics as the F-22. The Terminator uses a lightweight RAM coated body, AM coated canopy, odd angles, ECM pods, AWACS derived radar assistence, and mathematical route planning.

As most research has shown (including research by the Air Force and U.S. military) is that the Russians do get one up on us. In fact, on of the main motivators for the U.S.’s Advanced Tacticle Fighter Program is because of the HUGE advancements the Russians have made in their military. Because Russia is desperate for their whole supremacy ideals, they will market to ANY country wanting their products. However, due to the fact that the Russians DO NOT take good care of their equipment (go look at ramenskoye air base near moscow on google earth, you will see what I mean, the Su-37 is even there)and pursue quantity over quality, good quality items from the Russian Military are usually VERY short lived. Due to over use and the fact that the Russians became lazy and did not build any other Su-37’s than the one you see in the videos, the Su-37 Terminator 711 crashed at an airshow in 2002. The Su-37’s only pilot (ever), Lt. Yevengy Frolov
ejected and lived. The only Su-37, however, crashed fataly and was unable to be repaired. Due to the lack of funding for the program then (it had gone so long the Russians literally got bored and lazy with it) and the lack of another Su-37 (they were too lazy to produce two) the Russians did not continue with the Su-37 prgram.

HOWEVER! Stemming from data gathered from the Su-37 testbed program (they did do SOMETHING good with it) the Russians (under the Sukhoi company) produced the Su-35. Earlier versions of the Su-37 were named this (they simply lacked thrust vectring) however a new fighter has emerged as of July 2008. It looks similar to the Su-27, however is the sam size as the Su-37, except without the canards. It has more stealth technologies (rivaling that of the F-22, including a prototype Su-35 plasma stealth testbed) and is twice that of the Su-37. Exact abilities are unknown, however the Su-35 is a VERY real threat to the F-22, having a new missile upgrade which is apparently the Russian version of the AMRAAM.

Either way you look at it, the wall came down, but its still the Cold War, just with more smiles…

robert, i respect your service, but i also must point out that the Brits did pull off some very risky endeavors in Desert Storm, same as us. as TheVoiceofReason said, we’re allies, we get along, we both rock, what else’s needed? i agree, though, the guy was obviously convinced that the Brits did all the work…

edge, i think we’ve all convincingly argued that the Raptor and Super Flanker are very close in maneuverability, and speed, although still important, is no longer the only name of the game; once you pass Mach 2.5, there’s really no current practical point in having anything faster.

hi Hotrod, long time no see. i also was not aware that F-35 RAM maintenance required USAF technicians; this begs the question of why other countries are even considering the aircraft; it sucks, AND they’re dependent on another country for logistics. i have heard that the Brits are looking at navalized Eurofighters, but that would necessitate their own supercarriers; in other words, their CVF “Queen Elizabeth”-class concept goes out the window, because it’s just not big enough for truly fixed-wing catapult operations, it was designed more for STOVL-style ops; ski-jump take-off, vertical or short landing. the Brits do need a carrier, it would have solved the whole Falklands mess twenty-five some years ago, and actual aircraft AWACS would be nice, although haven’t heard anything about E-2 procurement. i suppose it’s the only realistic possibility, but still…

Da Mini dude, i agree with you on many areas, but the Su-37 is vulnerable to detection at long-range; coupled with any long-range weapons system the air force comes up with in the next ten years (an ALRAAM, maybe), the F-22 becomes a formidable airborne sniper.

TheVoiceofReason, “advanced”-ness does not guarantee survivability anymore. the Raptor and Super Flanker are very close agility-wise, and both employ excellent weapons systems. the opening dogfights of a conflict could very well go the Raptor’s way, but then what? out of missiles, their positions known because of their open bay doors, they come under attack from multiple planes, multiple angles. stealth is a force-multiplier, but only up to a point, and then it becomes irrelevant. i fear our air force will find that out the hard way.

shadowflight, I’ve heard numerous conflicting bits of data from many sources, some trustworthy, some not, about whether or not the Russians are the only ones able to do a Cobra, among others. allegedly, the F-16, F-15, F-22, and others have all been capable of the cobra; the Swedes apparently did it right after the Russians. again, i don’t know what to believe about this, and extra info is appreciated.

anoop, those range figures you keep listing; who made them? how? are they projections, goals, real tested capabilities? and i don’t think Irbis sounds that advanced; the Russians have had the ability to engage six targets at once ever since we sold F-14s to Iran, who subsequently after the revolution passed on the AWG-9 radar to their Soviet buddies for the MiG-25 Foxbat. so forty years ago countries could shoot down six targets at once; now it’s just four? i understand Irbis can probably target and track better, but you’d think technology would’ve advanced far enough to at least surpass the Hughes AWG-9! of a fighter the stupid navy saw fit to retire three years ago!

all of you seem to know nothing about aircraft. you are comparing an advanced tactical fighter [ATF]with a multirole fighter. in a dogfight, an F-22 raptor would win, hell yeah, but the eurofighter was not designed to go up against the planes f our closest ally. the eurofighter, being able to cruize at supersonic speed, WITHOUT FIRING UP THE AFTERBURNERS, is clearly good at intercepting nuclear warheads, and cruize missiles before they enter european areospace, but the raptor is best at intercepting incoming aircraft. i personally preferre the raptor, but that isn’t saying that it is better.

as for the whole
“a squadron of F-117’s, and F-22’s” up at the top, i think you are missing the fact that both aircraft will cause problems. if you send them in together, you will probably cause problems. a nighthawk is a stealth bomber, not an air-to-air fighter, so it doesn’t need any extra manourvability, an it has a very poor handeling. they would get in the way of the F-22’s and get destroyed by the aircraft, leaving the SAMs to destroy the F-22s. even though they can easily out manouvre them, eventually, hey would have to all back, or be destroyed, after emptying the small supply of weaponry onboard.

next, many people have commented that the manouvrability of the F-22 and he SU-37 are pointless in dogfight. think about it for a second. if you are in a dogfight, and you have an advanced AAM headed at you, what would you have to do… OUTMANOUVRE it! they have good manourveability, because the manufacturers are smart, and they know that if their plane gets shot at, it wll need to have ood dodging capabilities.

finally, people are takin sides because of what country they come from. i mean some americans are so patriotic, that if you made an unmanned airbourne vehicle [UAV] out of wood and nails, they would think it was the best. and ‘god bless the US of A’. you are all so full of yourselves because you have more man power, making you the leading military country on the world. i think that if anyone starts the 3rd world war, then it will be the american military. i am not being racist there, i am sayin that nobody should have that much power, and that many nukes.

and finally back to aircraft. i believe that although the technology of the plane is important, so is the ability to operate it, so the pilot is important. if you have an F-22, but you don’t know how to shoot a missile, or if you are in a EF2000, and you don’t know how to activate he afterburners, or accelerate, you are basically just i an ordinary aircraft. of course it isn’t actually that dramatic, but you get my point. for all of you that care about your pride, that feel lke you have been ripped to shreds, i am also a 14 year old, turning 15 in 2 days, so if you have been ripped appart by this, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Eh, no reason to compare the F-22 and Eurofighter, we are allies or on good terms with all the countries that could be considered Western European for the forseeable future, so F-22 + Eurofighter = unstoppable.

lee, your writing betrays your age. true knowledge and experience would’ve taught you never to generalize about anything, and that extends to your comment claiming none of us “seem to know [anything] about aircraft”. I would find that offensive, except that it’s such obvious bullshit. most of us have proven that we actually do more than regurgitate facts. as to your ideas… the Eurofighter not being designed to fight the aircraft of an ally is little excuse for that aircraft’s performance. countries sell weapons, and those weapons (or variants) end up in the hands of potential enemies; not saying this is probable, but say Saudi Arabia was taken over by Muslim fundamentalists - AFTER the Brits sold them EF-2000s. suddenly you have a situation where the Typhoon could engage F-22s. kind of a reverse example there, but it demonstrates that you never take for granted you’ll never have to fight your friends, because in some circumstances you will be. to reiterate, this is all hypothetical to the point of idiocy. secondly, you make it sound as if only the EF-2000 can supercruise, when that capability was one of the Raptor’s main selling points. and how does that make an aircraft more capable of taking out nuclear warheads; only an air-launched ASAT could come close to that, and Europe doesn’t have those. all other ABM systems are ground-based, and Europe hasn’t actually developed such systems on its own. cruise missiles are a different story; there, you need advanced detection systems and capable missiles, and again I don’t see how the Eurfoighter is better suited at it than the Raptor. not to say it’s worse, but… your “F-117 and F-22″ scenario is incoherent; how will Nighthawks being shot down allow SAMs to suddenly see and engage Raptors? and how many people said that “maneuverability [is] pointless in [a] dogfight”? I can only recall one or two, and they weren’t major contributors. also, i have seen very few significant examples of ubernationalism getting in the way of reasonable thought. anoop seems to be the opposite; he hammers on the US even though he is supposedly American! no, manpower is not the only contributing factor to American military might, and most of that is tied down in the middle east anyway. our “manpower” is actually so drawn down because the cold war ended that Russia or China could probably force a fight in some little province and we would do nothing to stop them. look at Georgia; that definitely merited a response, but we sat on our hands and sent “relief supplies”. and no, we will never start WW3, because any politician to suggest it would be committing political suicide. no, it’ll be religious fanatics or downtrodden rogue states or militarist moves in russia or china that will force WW3. so in conclusion, i don’t think any of else felt “ripped appart [sic] by this”; for your info, I’m also 15 years old, and I don’t feel the need to brag about that to earn brownie points. unlike you, i judge solely upon intelligence and wisdom; age, like gender, should have little to do with the equation. bottom line; quit preening, you’re setting yourself up for failure.

US Europe, noble sentiments, but as i stated above, you never know what could happen (the US armed the very mujahideen who organized 9/11 and are now supporting the insurgency in the Middle East).

i never disagreed, anoop, but please cite objective sources, not “The India Times”; sounded to me more like the Americans still hold the upper hand, their only fault being their aging aircraft.

in other news, who sees the wisdom in parking the 7th Fleet’s most expensive garden furniture right off the Chinese coast? ever heard of Sunburns? how about the fact that AEGIS is 20 years old and definitely due for replacement, and cannot detect the latest Chinese missiles until they’re five seconds out? i have a bad feeling that a carrier battle group will be annihilated some day in the South China Sea…

well i think out of these four fighter planes sukhoi-37 is the best fighter plane F-22 raptor is completely outperformed by the sukhois and eurofighter stands no place in the competition. it is clear that sukhois emerge clear winner in this contest.American and Europeans are completely outclassed by Russians technology. i think americans and europeans will take time to come out with something like sukhoi-37

I love how people look at these air shows and deem the SU is a superior fighter over the F-22.

Get a clue people, when the ruskies are flying these at air shows they are trying to sell them. Most of these planes will go to Foreign companies, compared to the F-22 which they have no intention on selling and will stay within US borders. The United States Military is smart enough not to show off it skills and assets of it’s most advanced fighter. That is why we are still the worlds leading superpower.

The F-22 now is coming up with a new HUD helmet which lets you see through the floor of your plane and lock on to targets 360 degrees. The F-22 does now work alone, it communicates with local radar stations and surronding communicationhubs to get the most up to date intel and multiple raptors can communicate with each other and lock onto targets without being compromised.

The whole skin of the F-22 is a giant working computer…Much of the SU is known because they want to sell it, most of the F-22 is still classified and will remain to be.

andrew, your original points are relatively sound, but your rationalizations seem a bit off, if not completely jingoistically exasperated. while American foreign policy currently dictates that we will not sell the F-22 abroad, there are powerful factions in and out of Washington working to bend that rule. The Japanese, South Koreans, Israelis, and others have all expressed interest in buying Raptors, and they wield considerable power (by which i mean monetary backing). additionally, a standing law of system acquisition is this: the more people that buy a system, the less the overall system costs. meaning: more people buy Raptors, Raptor costs less. this is why the US has aggressively pursued export campaigns in Europe and Asia with the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-5, etc. not to mention all the tanks and stuff we sold the Saudis, and those F-14s to Iran. so those Raptors at Nellis and Farnborough? they’re not only showing up for the cameras, I’ll guarantee you that. and the Raptor being “a giant working computer” reminds me of a previous comment saying the Raptor was a brinck with wings… how aerodynamic d’you think a Dell would be? or maybe the Macbook Air… lol jk. as to your argument about much of the Raptor being classified, how long do you think that will last? the plane’s already twenty-something-years old (concept in ’80s, test flights in ’90s and they’re trying to cut costs by integrating less expensive (and therefore less advanced) systems; this process is already in full swing in the case of the F-35 JSF. and how hard would it be to rig a Super Flanker with advanced systems (as anoop claims India’s doing)?

Most of what is on this thread is just “patriotic” ignorance…
Although, there are some good points made here.
This is just my personal opinion but I believe each aircraft has its own advantage and if the strategists can use them wisely, they would succeed. The pilots on all sides are well trained, it is rather difficult to compare since there has been no declared military confrontation between any of the nations… but we are getting close to one, if the current situation keeps deteriorating. Also, depending on where such battles take place, I dont think either side could every actually win in any literate sense of the word…

i understand anoop lives here and works here in the usa, but is of foreign descent, then talks horribly about us and says how under trained we are and how stupid we are. well…if you dont like it, or us, then leave. oh… wait… but you wont, because you enjoy the safety and life here dont you? yup. enough said.

im with the su-37..EVEN anime(written and drawn by japs/chines) such as macross zero..chose thier veritechs to look like su-37’s..

now that im done with that..lets talk facts..PREEM says that the su craft has zero steach tech on it..WRONG..below is an exerpt from an article about a new technology they are applying on su-37’s(sorry anoop only russians will keep these):

“Russia is believed to be continuing its pioneering work on the development of a plasma cloud generator to provide active stealth protection for combat aircraft. Details are sparse but the Keldysh Research Institute, under then leadership of Anatoly Korotoyev, is known to have developed a plasma generator weighing around 100kg, suitable for installation on a tactical fighter aircraft. This has been More.. tested on models and on real aircraft, with the Su-32/34 strike fighter believed to be the first combat aircraft to incorporate the system in its airframe. In essence, the system requires an energy source on the aircraft to energise the surrounding air, most probably at the leading edges of the aerodynamic surfaces, causing ionised air in the boundary layer to flow around the airframe, shrouding it in an impenetrable radar screening cloud. Unfortunately, the power requirement for the generator is high and the system would probably only be activated when an enemy radar is detected. The presence of the ‘cloud’ around the aircraft would also block transmissions from the aircraft being protected, but it is possible that appropriate gaps in the ‘cloud’ could also be created to overcome this. The high power generation requirement and additional weight of the system is probably easier handled by the Su-32 than by smaller fighters, such as the MiG-29.”

- Also PREEM, the base coat of the su itself is stealth in nature. If you read previous posts like me(ive read it since the first thread) you would see that plenty of people have provided information on that and confirmed that the su does have stealth tech but not as much as the F-22.

- I dont think that these arguments are based on patroitism at all..F-14, Alex Ryan, Anoop all provided good reasons as to why thier choice was great. I myself, an american..a black american at that agrees with most that the F-22 dominates the first shot first kill area and that the SU dominates the actual dogfight..However, with technology moving faster then my greenbay packers offense these planes are just 1 or 2 upgrades away from being truly beetter then the other…

As for the pilots, I thnk russian and americans are evenly matched and israelis are the combo breakers(best friend is an israeli jet fighter pilot..f-16)

- I previously saw an earlier post from some guy saying that he would pick the F-22 over the SU because it has stealth and first kill/shot potential. I disagree and would choose the SU for 3 main reasons:

1) The ability to detect the incoming missles…Time and time again F-14 and Anoop have gone back and forth, both with proving points and the sum that F-22’s can shoot first but the SU will most likely be able to dodge or detect the incoming missile

2) Numbers…F22 costs near $70 million to build while the SU(depending on application) can cost anywhere from 45-60 million.. The US at the CURRENT momemnt wont allow other nations to work on the raptor thus causing deployment issues. In a scenario where 2 wings of SU’s were to head out and bomb lets say a power plant and raptors were sent out to intercept..chances are that the raptor would not be coming back because at most 2-3 raptors would be sent out. Some would say that is all thats needed, but until a missle comes out that can kill simultaneous enemies in the air, the raptor would be shredded to pieces once it fired.

3) actual combat…In an actual dogfight where it flips and becomes more pilot then aircraft, I would choose the most maneuverable as I would want to outperform my enemy..

What we as fans of these planes and future pilots of these planes need to understand is that the technology world is ever changing..10-15 years ago, I would TOTALLY agree that the F-22 was the ultimate air superior fighter(heck I had posters on my wall from the raptor). But since the SU27 and now the SU37 came out the challenges for the F-22 has increased alot..

On a side note, micheal bay and the other guy(forgot his name) showed exactly what the F22 lacked in transformers in the scene near the end with the 6 f-22s trying to out-maneuver starscream lol…if those were Su’s id say only 1 would have gone down istead of 4 heh…

My ultimate dream is to witness the first veritech jet plane which can be found in macross or robotech..imagination is key as Andrew stated earlier with the new HUD helmet showing you 360 degress outside the plane itself would not be possible if it wasnt for imagination..

I wish that russia and the us cleared all thier differences and then I would be able to see the SU LIVE in FL at the best air and sea show in the US!! (this year theres talk about using ammo on the ocean)

I’ve read through much of this two year hubris and there are some beautifully articulated points made on the strengths and weaknesses of all of three fighters. Then there is a lot of politcally motivated, plain ol’ BS in here.

The original question was ‘which one of these fighters is the best in the world’. If the term ‘best’ is defined as which plane’s pilot, after an encounter with the other, will be smoking a stogie and which one will be atmospheric debris, then answer to that question lies in the circumstances of the fight.

A few years back, the US decided to take a route on their development of the air superiority fighter, and that was stealth technology and early detection capabilities. The Russians continued down the traditional path of superior manueverability, power, weaponry, etc.

Now lets get back to our point, which one is the best in a dogfight? Well, the answer is that there really will be no traditional dogfight going forward. With the capabilities of radar and weaponry combined, the first to detect will be the first to kill (their enemies). This puts the F-22 ahead of the rest by far. If you can’t be seen, you can’t be killed. Kill your enemies before they detect you.

Think of it like the ultimate human fighter (on the battle field) If you had a trained soldier who was the strongest physical specimen, who knew all the latest MMA techniques, he carried the latest weapons, etc. he would be the best in close quarter combat, but he stands zero chance once detected by a sniper within a 1000yds. His lights would get turned off without him even hearing the sound of the shot. That’s pretty much what will happen in the air battle arena going forward.

Now if they were somehow to get into close quarter fighting, and the Raptor was detected, that would be a different story. But that won’t happen because any engagement will be decided by the Raptor pilot, should he engage or not; the Su37 or Eurofighter pilot will not know the Raptor is there.

FYI, back here in the US, top F-15, F-16,etc. squadrons dogfight with F22 squadrons for obvious training reasons. The F15 pilots are left flying not knowing they’ve been shot down till command center tells them to come home…because they’re already dead; the Raptors saw them and took them out long before the F15 pilot knew anything.

Until the Sukhois and the Eurofighters advance their detection systems, Stealth technology will rule the skies. You can’t kill the enemy you can’t see.

Investment Advisor (local bank) : “you can invest money in a derivative based on the F-22 raptor that promises a annual return of 30% on the money you invest… since we will be selling a lot of those in the future to the Arabs. you can take a mortgage on your house to fund this investment..!”

good points Rog, most commentary here is all theoretical until these planes square off. KL’s rhetorical question regarding ‘invisible missiles’ brings to mind another point- I believe what he is trying to get at leads towards the exceptional manuevering qualities of the Su37 and its perceived ability to dodge incoming threats. However, leading information sources and aeronautical tacticians have stated that these manuevers can only be performed at relatively slow speeds, which in itself make the aircraft vulnerable. It appears that the Su 37’s strengths are also its weakness, once you bleed speed off of the aircraft, it effectively becomes a sitting duck in the arena- where a follow up shot can end the game. The truth is, most of all of these aircrafts’ real capabilities are classified, so like Rog says, no one will know until they square off. Merry Christmas to all.

i dont get it for some reason everyone thinks that the f-22 is just stealth let me tell you somthing ANY OBJECT that can change its thrust can move in any direction the same as any other thrust vectoring so with that said the f-22 and su any su lol are pretty equal to maneverability, now next comes to weapon systems then defensive systems and ok we could install the head mounted hardware but dont need it lol we do have the stealth NOTHING STEALTHY AT ALL WITH the su-37 and usa always has far better electronics just deal with it russia uses 70percent of its science research for military purpose which is why they have pretty neat weapons nice missles but unreliable do to lack of use and i dont care about the so called 9 to 1 kill ratio in egypt test you real think usa government is going to go all out so congress will have more doubts about an already very expensive program or do you think that was a setup to push the f-22 production numbers come on SHEEP STOP EATING THE SHEEPLE FOOD and look at the vid’s come on the raptor pilot did nothing at all it was watered down just to put on a lackluster show to not waist to much gas and not cause an accident where as the you can clearly see the russian pilot was prob threatned with death if he did not go all out so there ya have it a little common sense goes a long way and yes we have better trained pilots military in general i know so much classified stuff lol you guys sound like your just scratching the surface europe and russia are around because usa is a peace loving people so you canbe affended all you want i have nothing agaisnt anyone who has nothing agaisnt me im just loooking at this discusion in a common sense way and it says F-22 all day any day and the su is not that good looking it has two noses lol and the silver engine destroys the blue cammo its great you guys got passion for your country but let pride take a back seat to common sense and admit i make a extremely strong case the su 47 would be a nice airpolane but it is extremely huge and at high speeds swept forward wings have a tendacyto break in high G maneuvvers plus again not too stealthy so there ya go and take the euro trash fighter out of the conversation and please never again and of course every new concept will look like a f-22 lol funny. sad god bless usa and no one else lmao j/k

su-30mki with canards and vector thrust control appr. 50 mio $ a plane
(of course only in a 50 order-bundle)

f-22 appr. 120 mio $ a plane
(can’t believe they will sell that to israel, cause it might end up in TAF or HAF few years later like those f-16s)

so basically we are comparing sparkling wine with champagne. now that’s reasonable.
and do not come with cheap labour… blabla… russian genius engineering… blabla
don’t get me wrong here, sukhois are very fine sparkling wine, but to get champagne:
double your budget.

ask a pilot what is most important. He will answer :”my skill and my wingman’s skill”
and that is it. of course you are havin a bad day when you find yourself in a dogfight with a mig-29 whilst sitting in a viggen or a phantom. That is because you (and your buddy) were not able to shoot it down before.

Well, we will never know until we see them in a dog fight. Although it’d be great to be able to judge from air show footage. A few things flawed on those supporting the Sukoi 37, yes, it is a great looking airplane for those of us that enjoy playing Ace Fighter, but if you know anything about physics, you’ll know 2 things, NO HUMAN ALIVE can withstand the G forces generated by one of those flips at Mach speed. Simply, that means that we have a crudely built airplane that can do great feats at low speeds, but simply can not do so in battle. This was shown in the early 90’s by NASA with the F-15 Active prototype which looked a lot like this plane. The Eurofighter on the other hand took the concept built after the Vietnam War emphasizing small size and fast speed. Clearly, this is a superb machine however, although it looks pretty for the camera, it simply can not match the technological advantages of the F-22. Lets not forget here, stealth aside, that most of the technological advances of the F-22 are “under the hood”. Advanced detection systems and a far superior thrust vector technology than that of the SU-37 which are actually usable at high speeds. So on paper, all things considered, the F-22 is the top fighter, however, only the Eurofighter has seen some real-world action. Until we have WW3 and we can see these fighters go head to head, the F-15 Eagle will remain king of the skies.

Preem, the stalling maneuver’s purpose IS to halt the aircraft; no missile yet devised can compensate for the sudden decrease in speed and will overshoot. this does make the aircraft vulnerable to a follow-up shot, which is why the pilot will usually drop his nose and dive for the ground to regain energy. “Speed is Life”, as the Israelis say, and although losing speed can save your skin, regaining speed allows you to keep it. as to “stealth technology” that everyone both celebrates and bashes, let’s clarify something i may have already stated ages ago; lots of factors go into a Radar Cross-Section. a stealthy design is one thing, but what is the design for? for delivering weapons, right? and how do you deliver weapons? conventionally, you hang ‘em off the wings and release when necessary. but round bombs reflect signals rather well, and any aircraft, no matter how stealthy, would negate that advantage with a “forest of weapons” bristling underwing. this is why, although the F-14 Tomcat was large and hence gave itself away on radar easily, the addition of weapons to the airframe barely changed the Cat’s RCS, while the F/A-18, a smaller design, had its own RCS greatly enhanced when armed. whether or not the Su-37 has so-called “plasma stealth”, idk. until Janes Defense or GlobalSecurity say something about it, I’ll regard any information claiming it exists as unsubstantiated. but the Su-37 will have weapons hanging off its large wings, and the F-22, if deployed primarily for stealth, will not, although obviously the load a clean F-22 can carry vs. that of a Flanker is rather small. this calls into question the F-22’s actual multi-mission effectiveness, which again has been extensively debated, by myself and others. as to accuracy with radar-guided missiles, maneuvering and chaff will usually spoof them. but the latest generations of IR missiles are practically impossible to outmaneuver (AIM-9X and AA-11 come to mind) by any aircraft, even those with thrust vectoring. speaking of missiles, if anyone could get info on the latest Israeli Pythons vs. AIM-9X Sidewinders, that’d be great; Dimitri mentioned his friend flew an F-16 in the IAF, i believe.

funny, albert. but i’d also be concerned about who we actually trust our asses to: the Chinese and others for products, Japanese and Europeans for cars (although Detroit is worse), French for some airliners… nothing is truly American in terms of production anymore, although because of globalization no company belongs to any one country anymore… ramblings for a future discussion.

Dimitri, i’d be wary of basing my opinions based on which aircraft was featured by Japanese animators lol. but you make good points, and it’s always nice to see a newcomer whose actually read previous relevant posts before giving his own probably-previously-repeated-elsewhere sermon. no to mention someone who doesn’t take me for a jingoistic two-bit whack-job your points are solid, even if I don’t agree with some of your conclusions, but Transformers? Hollywood is the last place respectable aviation buffs should be digging for material lol.

as good a commentary as I’ve ever seen, BC! but i’ve said before that the instant an F-22 fires, it’ll be detected. and considering it’ll probably be outnumbered, there’ll be any number of missiles roaring back down its throat by the time the Raptor’s expended its arsenal, which internally isn’t much to squeal about. Navy and Air Force did some tests back in the ’70s, may have been AIM/ACEVAL although I could be mixing that up with Ladyfinger testing… anyway, the objective was to see how a small, highly-trained, technologically advanced air force would perform against a larger, average-skill, run-of-the-mill opponent; the former flew F-14s and F-15s while the latter got F-5s and A-4s. several insightful results came out of those tests, and one was that, against a more numerous, less-experienced, less-advanced technology-wise adversary, smaller higher-tech air forces could achieve a kill ratio of 2:1. somehow, after being weaned on Korea’s 13:1 and Vietnam’s 3:1-13:1 ratios, this number seemed too small to justify our arsenal’s emphasis on technology over numbers, which is why I believe, soon after, the Navy and Air Force began loading up on F/A-18s and F-16s to supplement their more expensive birds. If we were to apply the test’s mechanics to a modern scenario, well… for one, this is practically impossible, since the dynamics are obviously changed, but obviously in any plausible conflict pitting two equal countries, there would be more Su-37 or EF-2000-style aircraft then F-22s. and I don’t believe there would be enough F-22s to offset a 1:2 loss ratio. just throwing that out there…

no, kl, no missile is invisible. Radar-guided missiles produce radar emissions, which can be picked up by ECM. but IR missiles receive rather than emit, and therefore ECM cannot detect them.

Joshua Warren, u’r spouting a lot of the patriotic BS that many here have identified as, at least, detrimental to achieving a reasonable opinion. yes, Europe and Russia exist because we were nice to them seventy years ago, but we absolved them of all debt as a gesture of goodwill; therefore, the topic is not to be flouted as a chip anymore. America is not the all-powerful wonderful nation trumpeted in song, and many times I am ashamed of living as one among others who, frankly, i find incredibly stupid, if not naive.

interesting comparison, anyjetfighternerd.

D, the F-1f ACTIVE looked nothing like the Flanker; the difference has always been one of aesthetics, with the F-15’s boxy angular exterior contrasting sharply with the curved, flowing lines of the Sukhoi. matter of preference, really; I like both. good point about things being out of the public eye, though; it’s something we all need to remember. until these machines test themselves in actual combat (here’s hoping they never have to), all we can do is speculate. but we can do that to the best of our ability, and that means coming up with thoughtful, insighftul comments, as opposed to the jingoistic bullshit many have spouted previously.

Obviously, nobody here read the Aviation Week & Space technology article about the test that were performed with the F15, F18 the F22 and a confiscated Su30, USAF put these planes in the air and the f-22 shot them all down before any of them ever found him. So I don’t car how they look at air shows or up close, it’s how it performs.

I’m glad so many foreign air combat enthusiasts are so confused about how effective American stealth technology is! From someone who has actually seen the cross-section of an F-22 and been involved in testing, I wish anyone who would fly against it the best of look. You won’t EVER catch the F-22 by surprise, it will have a lock on you and squeeze off a few missiles before you even know where the fire is coming from.

Do you really think anyone is going to mount missiles externally on the F-22? Americans aren’t as stupid as you think. Sure the average American, maybe, but a military _IS_ as strong as its brightest minds. And for anyone who thinks pilots are even going to be relevant in air combat ten or fifteen years from now: think again.

If you want to dogfight, try pulling 20 Gs and not turning into a puddle of jelly.

But the U.S. is smarter than that. Why dogfight when you can just have a squadron of F-22’s fire an off-set missile barrage that can cover any escape vector maneuvers pulled by a bogey? If you try to turn or use countermeasures, another missile system will pick up on your tricks. There are just too many sensors which are way too smart coming out of Raytheon to think that any of them will fail to strike.

I think that the F-22’s only weakness is that it can be overwhelmed by massive numbers of planes. But when they can wipe out an entire opposing flight with 99.9% certainty and a standard deviation of .003%, I don’t think there’s any real need to fear battles with small numbers. Air combat then comes down to a strategic game of logistics and force allocation.

Rick, where was the “confiscated Su30″ from? please post data and source…

nice to have an expert show up to clarify things, Mr. Raytheon, but how effective will that “squadron of F-22s” be if it’s limited to internal ordnance? and you’ve pinpointed the very weakness many of us have already identified: the F-22 will probably be outnumbered in any true conventional war, and therefore suffer losses. also, what’s the RCS of an F-22 like in adverse weather? I’ve heard the F-117 had problems with rain on the airframe reflecting a signature, which is why it never flew in bad weather…

Hello everyone,hulkster here, and you don’t need me to tell you that i am new here.
I’ve been proof reading this thread for a few days so i can get into the spirit of things. I am not going to give my opinion on which plane is better because i just don’t have the knowledge to do so even though I’ve been googling it forever.I just don’t wanna get into it. I’ll leave that up to the real experts whoever they may be.
But my question is, why don’t we make an airplane that can out perform anything out there? I’m sure we have the resources to do it, so why don’t we ? just to shut some mouths up.I mean we have sent a damn buggy to Mars and someone down at NASA is controlling it with a damn joystick!!!!!!!!. Some countries can’t even dream of doing that yet.

Since my job requires me to be in Europe for long periods of time,believe me the people their don’t think much of us, at least not anymore.I won’t get into that know unless someone has any questions.Anyway that’s my input for now.

One thing I’ve noticed about the Su-37 in these air show demos is that it’s most impressive when it’s going less than 100 kilometers per hour! Air combat air maneuvering is done at very high speeds, so being able to do a Pugachev’s Cobra at 40 mph without stalling is not that important. I don’t have to tell you why stopping in mid-air is not advisable in a dogfight. The Su-37 probably has the best low-speed maneuvering, but that wouldn’t matter in a real combat situation. American ACM tactics emphasise climb rate over turning anyway, which is why the F-22’s wing area (almost 80 square meters!) is WAY bigger than the Eurofighter or the Su-37(50 and 60 square meters, respectively). The F-22 may not steal the show at airshows like the Sukhoi, but it’s a HELL of a lot better in an actual fight.

All three of these aircraft are magnificent performers with “super-maneuverability” - that is, the capabilities of the airframe actually exceed the physical limitations of the pilot. So for all intents and purposes the three aircraft have about the same level of manevurablility because they’re all limited by the pilot’s G force tolerance. The F-22 does have a significant edge, howeveer, in climb rate. Its thrust:weight ratio is actually a bit lower than the Typhoon’s but that’s deceptive because it has lower wing loading and a greater percentage of its weight is fuel. When its fuel is 50% gone, it’ll be the lightest plane in the fight.

So the Raptor is only slightly behind the others in performance. Technology and tactics, then, will be the deciding factor. Each F-22 pilot (there would be four most probably) would have a secure broadband datalink to the other three, granting him perfect information of the entire fight. He has a helmet-mounted display much like the Typhoon’s, which frees him from looking down at gauges so he can focus on the fight.
The Raptor is the only one of the three with any real stealth capability. The Americans could acquire their opponents and engage with AIM-120 missiles at a maximum effective range of 100 miles or more long before they were detected, so the Sukhois wouldn’t even know they were in a fight until half of them were dead. The F-22s are not invisible and CAN be acquired by active radar systems within visual range, but the AESA radar they carry are so powerful they can literally fry enemy radar before that happens.
And as noted by others, American fighter pilots are pretty much peerless in terms of training and professionalism. In air-to-air combat they fly in the “finger four” formation adopted from the Luftwaffe which is a mutually-supportive pair of mutually-supportive pairs (in other words, each plane is protected by another plane). Russian pilots tend to fly in gaggles of a dozen or so with no really cohesive formation. The Americans would be outnumbered, but that’s nothing new. Why do you think the U.S. government is willing to spend more than 100 million dollars per plane?

where did you go anoop? did you get deported to your home country? if your country’s pilots are smaller and thinner than fat Americans, it’s because your poor ass country cant afford enough food. If you don’t like America and have nothing but bad to say about it, why are you here? If your country is better, go live there. If your country has smarter people with better education than our dumb mathematically challenged people, take your kids out of our schools and back to your country. If your country is better than ours, why do hundreds of thousands of people from the rest of the world come here to live and prosper, including people from your country, and there is no mass emigration of Americans going to live in your home country, only to bitch and complain about how it sucks and how home was better. America is better because the people believe it is, regardless of our own complaints about our government, economy, etc. It took support from the rest of the world to make it that way, true enough, but I acknowledge that and realize that your contributions and those of your people are vital to our further improvement. We welcome the hard-working, honest people coming here to contribute to society who appreciate the opportunity our nation gives them, but if you’re not grateful for the job you have or the home you live in or the food you eat or your right to say that America sucks and not be put to death or imprisoned, then you don’t deserve to be here. Our country wants people who wish to better our country and the world as well as themselves, not people who come with greedy and self-centered intentions. What are you here for?

Looking at those videos those russian jets sure look good especialy the flanker ,but in real combat ?who knows ,the ability to super cruise at 1.7 without after burners would be a great advantage i would think sepecialy with stealth ,i dont think the usa would let all its cats out of the bag in an air show do you? no matter how good all these jets are ,one thing remains true and a warning that usa does know what its doing and the sr71 is testiment to that ,it still has no equal and if they did that in th 60s it makes you wonder what the f22 can really do in combat ,as for the f35 ,i just cant see it matching the russian jets ,too slow ,not eneough arms or range ,in fact i would have to see it to believe it ,i sure like those russian jets at the cost but are they as reliable thats the question ,the euro fighter goes ok but i think the design is old and the front wings were tried by the usa a long time ago and ditched ,i think they all are different for different purposes ,but you could have 5 russian ones for 1 f22 ,sometimes numbers count ,anyway i think they are all great and the russian pilots are fantastic as are the jets ,but who knows what that f22 can really do ?no one but my bet its quite a lot more than we know going on that sr71 ,that is some bird i think even the russians would agree .

Anoop ,One has to ask” if you are correct in what you say ,what are you doing studying there in the 1st place ?Surely not to learn, going on what you have said.you sound more like an enemy of the usa .

Oh, and again, Remember the mantra - First Look, First Shot, First Kill. Tomcats superior radar allows it first detection. AIM-54 allows it first shot and, even if the F-15/F-22 manages to evade a couple of Phoenix barreling in he’s, at best, diverted his attention between keeping track on the Tomcat and evading the AIM-54’s. At worst he’s on a reciprocal bearing running to try and get out of the AIM-54’s envelope. Either way, the Eagle/Raptor is in a defensive position and one step BEHIND the Tomcat driver who can now adopt optimal position for a follow up shot.

lol, haven’t seen anoob-bashing for a long time, brings bck such memories (above)…

jack, your points are sound, but the SR-71, despite the revolutionary technological breakthroughs it undoubtedly represents, is not of much note beyond its speed, ceiling, range, and stealth attributes. The aircraft was designed solely for high-speed high-altitude reconnaissance and drank copious amounts of fuel; they couldn’t even fully fuel it on the ground, because the airframe would leak much of the gas. It expanded in flight due to friction, which sealed any openings, but necessitated tanking immediately after take-off. Essentially, the SR-71, though ground-breaking, was a one-trick pony, practically useless. Satellites provided greater realtime on-station capability, sacrificing image clarity for orbital reliability. so your argument claiming that, because of the Blackbird (which was actually painted “indigo-blue”) we should expect amazing things from the Raptor is rather, idk, dumb, although accurate in one respect - the F-22’s role is as singular as the SR-71’s was.

Nobody, have you read any of the relatively early posts, specifically those made by me? I state many times that, though it needed replacement, the F-14 was an awesome aircraft and deserved a successor based on the same airframe (Northrop Grumman’s cancelled F-14D Super Tomcat 21 concept), not Boeing’s shit-on-a-stick Sewer Bug. Phoenix was great, but limited to bomber killing; a new Phoenix would be needed, with greater performance and telemetry, for the current world. that said, the AMRAAM is definitely NOT the missile for the job; too little range, and by all accounts the Ruskies have better stuff, hanging off the wings of export MiGs and Sukhois. but your point is correct, in such a situation the F-14 would have a major opening advantage.

the Tomcat’s awesome radar could be beaten, as the Australians demonstrated during exercises off Perth with an American CVBG. Aussie F-111s approached the carrier and, when scanned by the AWG-9, either turned sideways to the radar or dove straight down, I forgot which (I believe the latter is for use against pulse-doppler radars, so it was probably the latter) ; in any case, the result was to throw the AWG-9 into confusion, and the E-2 controller, thinking the muddled returns the Tomcat was getting were an Aussie spoof, directed the Tomcat instead to what he believed to be the real threat, which was actually a spoof. The Aussies buzzed our carrier with sonic booms to reveal the error.

sorry f=14
a disabled tomcat is a disabled tomcat!!!
can’t change can u?
do u work???
i mean all the time u dedicate trying to compere and mediate EVERYONE on this site, is pathetic
do u think u are the final decider of what is acceptable and what is not?
talk about megalomania: a legend in your own mind!
chew on this

Indian Su-30MKi at Nellis AFB, 2008; Swirl of Controversy.
Posted by obrescia On November - 30 - 2008
Indian Air Force SU-30 MKi at Nellis AFB

Indian Air Force SU-30 MKi at Nellis AFB

Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office (USAF Warfare Center, Nellis AFB), was providing a briefing to a number of retired US generals (two videos):

USAF Pilot describes SU30

Pod-cast audio interview regarding the same presentation (even MORE interesting):

There is controversy regarding Colonel Fornof comments, which are cause for corresponding level of additional scrutiny, firstly:

1) Indian MiG-21IBis (I-Bis) “Bison” are equipped are equipped with Russian-made Kopyo radars, not Israeli “F-16” radars.
An Indian Air Force MiG-21IBis (I-Bis) “Bison”

An Indian Air Force MiG-21IBis (I-Bis)

2) That Su-30MKIs “lost in 1-v-1″ DACT at Mountain Home AFB. There was apparently no such training done at Mountain.

3) FOD concerns are not unusual for any air force operating halfway around the world.
So what conclusions, if any, can be drawn?

• There is no substitute for flight hours and training. Proper training allows aircrews (of any air force) to extract the maximum performance out of their aircraft.

• A similar post-stall counter-tactic was used by Nellis (F-15) instructors against less-experienced aircrews in both the F-22 and Su-30.

• His statement regarding the inability of instructor aircraft to employ the AIM-120 AMRAAM (due to jamming) is interesting. Whether it was jamming, snooping, heads-up defensive flying, or other tactical issues, his comment are (duly) noted.
64th and 65th Aggressor squadrons at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

• Statement regarding thrust vectoring in the pitch axis only (F-22) may indeed produce less drag. However F-22 aircrews must first roll the airplane in the longitudinal axis, a slit-second BEFORE initiating a turn. This can telegraph to an opponent, or weapons school instructor(s) your intent - at that moment - during the dogfight.

• The statement was made that the F-22 rate of turn is 28 degrees/second at ~ 20,000 ft, and that F-22 aircrews wanted more, why? Does F-22 enter the merge at higher speeds, thus need more to counter a “wider” turn?

• MKi use Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans, not Tumansky as was stated.

Colonel Fornof was referring to this video (F-22 and Su-30 side-by-side):

Here is longer unedited F-22 video:

Here is the unedited Flanker video used in the side-by-side:

Here:

An astute observer noting things like airspeed, afterburner usage, altitude-loss and aircraft attitude during/between maneuvers, can see that both F-22 and Flanker are extremely evenly matched regardless of Colonel Fornof statements or hand position.

And here (Su-37, Su-35 and Su-30Mk (I)) w/commentary:

Indian report on Red-Flag 2008 (part 1):

Indian report on Red-Flag 2008 (part 2):

The Indians don’t seem too worried regarding the facts - in all this.

The Sukhoi is going to be with us for quite awhile, and by any measure, is (and will be) a nightmare for USAF/USN brass, planners and aircrews.

Cope India 2004 caused uproar inside the DoD and in Washington. The following Cope India exercises in 2005, 2006, and 2007, subsequently had very little information coming out - silence can be deafening – so something was afoot regarding our airplane-pilot performance over South Asia.

Train how you fight and fight how you train, train and train.

The question may be who fights over friendly airspace and who fights of hostile airspace?

When or if the Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor participates in a future Cope India exercise at their “Nellis AFB” whatever the results, they are certain to be quite the revelation - even if we never officially hear about them.

The Tomcat? You’re kidding right? The Tomcat WAS a great plane, but it would be a sitting duck against any of the fourth gen fighters, especially the F-22. First off, real pilots, who actually fly these things, consider the F-15 the best of the third generation fighters, and it’s not even close. The F-15 has a 104-0 kill ratio, and not a single air superiority model Eagle has been lost in combat (not sure if any Strike Eagles have been lost, but if they have, it was most likely to ground fire). So your assertion that a Tomcat would stand a chance against either is pretty much false. Take in to account also that the F-15 is still in service, and still actively upgraded, unlike the Tomcat, which would now be several years behind in avionics and electronics technology. Second, the AIM-54 does you absolutely no good if you can’t see or lock on to your adversary, which would be the F-22’s primary advantage. Even if it did get in a turning fight with the Tomcat, it can out maneuver the Tomcat in any situation, with very little effort. The entire

Eurofighter vs. F-22 vs. Su-27 vs. Su-30 debate is really mostly academic. They are all built for slightly different purposes, with different end goals in mind. Which one you see as better plane generally has a lot to do with where you live, and what larger strategic goal you think is the correct one to pursue. In a long distance fight, I would say the F-22 obviously has the upper hand in the group, because it’s so much harder to track and engage. In a turning fight, the Eurofighter probably gets the nod. Sure the Su-27 can pull off some great air show maneuvers, but I wonder how useful some of those maneuvers are in real combat. Aerobatics does not a combat maneuver make. The Eurofighters maneuverability is tailored for real dog fighting, not simply aerobatic display. That said, the F-22 is no slouch in maneuverability with it’s vectored thrust and advanced avionics package. Sure, some compromises in air frame had to be made to achieve the low radar cross section, but it can still handily out maneuver any third generation fighter. Given that in all likelyhood the latest generation of fighters will find themselves most often engaging last generation fighters, the F-22 is perfectly capable of winning a turning fight in that situation.

If the last 100 years has taught us anything, it’s not the best fighter that wins the air war. It’s a good fighter in the hands of outstanding pilots that wins the air war. I may have some bias here, but I feel the United States still produces some of the finest fighter pilots in the world. That is still our primary advantage as a major air power. That’s not to say that other countries don’t produce extremely talented pilots, I just feel that the US still produces a very high caliber of pilot across the board.

Wow… quite a bit of reading here. I happened upon this thread after getting an email with a video attachment of a SU30 Flanker, and the claim that it was the “world’s deadliest fighter.” I had to laugh, ’cause I thought what most other people here have mentioned - that it makes a nice airshow performer, but its pilot would likely be turned into a fine pink mist before he even had the notion to perform a “cobra”. This, of course, would be done by a Raptor pilot.

And to Anoop:

You may be personally talented in mathematics, but you are completely devoid of comprehension and logic skills. Its perhaps true that the average American lags in education to many other countries, but military pilots aren’t drawn from a field of averages. The top high-school performers go on to military academies (by virtue of near perfect performance and the recommendation of a senator). From that pool of insanely intelligent, talented individuals, only the best are selected to operate our most sophisticated machinery. Then they are put through some of the most rigorous and continuous training programs on earth.

Then there’s the COPE exercises you keep mentioning. I never read anything reliable that indicated the US forces were getting their asses kicked, or even defeated. What I’ve read is that the Indian Air Force was simply better than what the USAF had expected. And this still ignores the fact that the USAF is trying to justify the investment in the F-22. I can’t think of a better way to do that than pointing out the flaws of the current fleet.

I think Anoop has got too emotional during the start of this blog, but even though he rants about most of the time, he has provided a few valid points and some good SU material.

SU30MKI has Thrust Vectoring, Fly-By-Wire, Israli,French,Indian Avionics along with some very good missiles. I reckon these modifications would make it similar to SU-37, with much better avionics and it can even be upgraded.

With the addition of the PHALCON AESA AWACS, the IAF would be potent force along with their SU30MKI’s. According to a few experts above, the F22 looses its stealth as soon as it fires its missile and can then be easily tracked by the AWACS; in this scenario what kind of an advantantage would it have vis-a-vis the Indian MKIS Phalcon AWACS combo.

Many of the distinguished experts have also said that F22 costs around $120 million against $50-60 for an SU30MKI. This implies 2 SU30 MKIS’s(24 missiles) against 1 Raptor(6 missiles). What kind of an advantage would the F22 really have in this case if both the MKIS release 2-3 missiles at once along with help from the PHALCON AWACS.

Please can some one explain the main difference between the SU30 MKI v/s the SU-37 ?
What are the upgrade available to the SU30MKI that could make it even more deadly ?

Everyone argues that the COBRA, KULBIT and few other tradeshow maneuvers of the SU may be useless in actual combat scenarios against the F22 and Typhoon, but you may never know when it could actually be useful.

These tradeshow maneuvers are only examples of the extreme maneuverability of the Flanker Series but do not actually indicate that they cannot do these maneuvers at faster speeds. Everyone argues that at this slow speed, the SU would be easily shot down. But I think sudden deceleration and acceleration is an asset instead of a liability in actual dogfights. Due to TVC, the SU30 can actually make mincemeat of the Typhoon in an actual dogfight.

I think the SU30MKI and SU37 have sharper turn rates and deceleration than the Raptor and in a dogfight with multiple planes fighting it out, this can even out any advantage the Raptor may have.

I hope you know that the US airforce was flying at a major disadvantage in Cope India. Im glad you are proud of India’s achievements (they were a fantastic showcase of Indian training and their ability to adapt on the fly while using unconventional tactics during a war game. However lets not forget that the USA was at a major disadvantage. India should relish the victory but lets not be delusional. At India’s request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills. So yes with 3 to 1 oddsa gainst them (yes that’s right India utilized 3 to 1 odds in its favor during this exercise) the US lost the war game. And yes the Indians were using Radar. Do you really believe a wargame involving fighter jets was conducted w/o radar! Even though the US wasn’t equipped to support and didnt field operational AESA equipped F-15’s the Indians fielded MiG-21s equipped with a “gray-market” Bison radar and avionics upgrade. Indeed they were able to get a much better/complete radar picture and utilize this knowledge couped with 3 to 1 numerical superiority to defeat an under equipped/undermanned American force. I love India and hope it develops into a world class power but lets not blindly elevate the Indian air force to some super heroic status head and shoulders above any super power!

the f-22 beats them all in steath and the f-35 will own all of them but stay the same as the f22
if that was in battle the f-22 would win easy no contnse maby add the f19 and the f18 that would make it more fare but air show i could care less they all have good things about them like the euro fight and the other on srry i am not good with names of planes but they every one but the f22 have smoke stuff on them which is deciving but in battle the f22 could kill all and so culd the new f35 that should come out son by the way guys the f-22 can not can not be seen by rador so the othere planes could so in that aspect who would win it is a no contens the f22 would kill and domanate

dont threaten the usa air forse they could kill you

what whats his name said about the f15 is real f15 of that gen will be the same as the f22 for this gen and you forgot the greate f16 and the f18
bmsra you are rong with the turn rates i think you would have to see them in perso which i have seen the f22 kills

Hello to all
I believe that we have pretty much covered the issue about the three major competitors. I have some new information concerning the F-35 which I would like to share.
The F-35 is surrounded by some myths that are either not true or only partial true.
First myth: the F-35 is a stealth design. Not exactly, you see the plane could be considered as being stealth only to the front 28 degrees (14 degrees to each side right and left of the axis that runs through the fuselage) and only for very high frequency radars (being used by conventional scanning radars- not AESA- and short range SAM radars). Radars using lower frequencies and AESA (like the next tranches of EF, Rafale) are unaffected.
If we see the wings the situation is worst. The RCS of the wings -especially from the sides is almost equal to the relevant of a conventional fighter without carrying missiles (outer loads).
The nozzle is stealth again for the same frequencies mentioned above and that only when it is in the horizontal position (for the navy fighters).
Last thing about the stealth element is that the RAM paints are negatively affected by the rain or other weather conditions. And the repairs can only be performed by US personnel.
Myth second : the fighter is superior to all fourth generation fighters. Not quite, due to the design compromises the fighter will not have the agility of an EF or a Rafale or a Sukhoi in a dogfight. Not to mention battle persistence , the inner magazine can take up to 2 short (AIM 9X)and 2 long range (AIM 120C) missiles .
Myth number 3: The APG-81 can jam enemy radars. First of all this can be used only to older design radars and second the moment the APG-81 is on the stealth element goes out of the equation.
Conclusion : we have a fighter that costs much more than it was supposed to (some mention that the Israelis will have to pay 200 million $ per unit-I do not believe that this will be the fly away cost however)as it is meant to replace F-16 and other third generation fighters and be produced in large numbers.
Furthermore we have a fighter that is much more inferior than we anticipated (in both short and beyond visual range cases)
No wonder the Australians are skeptic……..

still going for cheap shots, anoop? fine, tit for tat - whatever you may think, this blog is NOT my life; I simply check in every other day on average if I have spare time to see what’s new in the aviation community; I also visit, among others, DID and GlobalSecurity. aviation, warfare, and history are passions I happen to value, and so I dabble in comment debates on a wide spectrum of issues. I happen to find information forums (and the arguments therein) to be rather intellectually stimulating, something I don’t get enough of from my peers. I read something and, if it provokes disagreement from me, I present my own case. I’m sure the same could be said of anyone else here; it’s undoubtedly why you keep coming back. do I like to imagine myself as “The Great Mediator”, final decider on all issues? yeah, of course, who doesn’t? but I’m NOT lost in that; if someone shows me I’m wrong, I adapt. you correct inconsistencies and incorrect info, right anoop? well, i simply do the same, I just happen to do it more often. so commentating is a hobby; so what? doesn’t make me a “megalomaniac”. why you keep fighting me on this, idk…

lol, Matt, the Tomcat IS a 4th-gen fighter; F-22 is 5th, EF-2000 is 5th (i think), and Su-37 is 4 . do you even know the story of the tomcat’s service? Essentially, upgrades were denied it on the grounds that the cost was too high, and so the brass kept putting it off until any useful updates were incredibly expensive, and therefore resisted by the cash-strapped, Hornet-loving Congress. if it had received the support the Eagle was given (engines, avionics, etc.), the Tomcat would have then been its equal, and, underpowered though it was, the Tomcat was quite capable of deploying bombs; indeed, it was fighter pilot intransigence on this issue that prevented the potential of the “Bombcat” from being fully explored! In fact, many pilots (including Air Force) believe the Tomcat to be superior because of its larger, higher-resolution TV screens! And over Afghanistan, they always gave the hard targets to the Tomcats, as opposed to Hornets. you also seem to be under the impression that the navy still operates the craft; they do not anymore. Only Iran flys F-14s now… we’re all falling into the trap of comparing aircraft based on 1v1 combat; my point about the Tomcat more relates to how useful the aircraft is as a multi-role bird, with valued attributes lacking in the F-22. an F-14D Super Tomcat 21 would be the equal, at least, of the F-15E Strike Eagle, and for sure would be better than the F/A-18E/F currently fulfilling the role. how d’you think a Super Hornet would do against the Raptor, compared to the Tomcat? the ST21 would’ve possessed an arsenal as varied as that of the Super Hornet, and twice as heavy, with the appropriate modern systems to deploy it.

Bmsra, I did not concur that such exercises were “useless”; indeed, I argued for the validity of exercises at TOPGUN and Red Flag! I also stated support for sudden deceleration, as long as it was followed by acceleration; after all, no one expects a Flanker jock to stick around to be shot! “[excerpt from above] the stalling maneuver’s purpose IS to halt the aircraft; no missile yet devised can compensate for the sudden decrease in speed and will overshoot. this does make the aircraft vulnerable to a follow-up shot, which is why the pilot will usually drop his nose and dive for the ground to regain energy. ‘Speed is Life’, as the Israelis say, and although losing speed can save your skin, regaining speed allows you to keep it.” Also, I believe the EF-2000 will soon receive TVC.

Skippy, the majority of informed opinion on here says the F-35 is not a capable aircraft, and certainly nothing like the F-22. I recommend LordBill’s excellent examination of F-35 myths (below)

I will have to agree with Jim who wrote: So a few hundred people watch a video and feel they become “experts” on three classified aircraft and can therefore give an “educated” opinion on which is the better aircraft.

But Jim when you write an opinion regarding 4 aircrafts, 2 russian, i american and 1 european having seen the true capabilities of only one of them is not right. I will explain to all of you what i mean. You must have a complete look in all of these aircrafts in order to make an opinion.

.Maneuverability:
1st: SU 37
2nd: SU 30
3rd: Eurofigter
4rth: F22

F22: is the worst of 4 in maneuvers due to its shape. It can perform good maneuvers only when using afteburner.
Su 37 & Su 30: Due to their shape and design can perform extreme maneuvers at any speeds.
The Eurofighter very good maneuverability similar to the SU’s.

.Armament:
1st: F22
2nd: SU 37
3rd: SU 30
4rth: Eurofighter

F22: it comes first and the main reason is because it has inner bay for armament. This doesn’t give away the plane’s stealth capabilities & it keeps it Aerodynamic which means better performance.
SU 37 & Su 30: Big loadout and many missile-bomb racks.
Eurofighter: Not the best that’s why it comes 4rht in armament.

.Speed:
1st: F22
2nd: Eurofighter
3rd: SU 37
4rth: SU 30

F22: It comes first because it has the ability to supercruise ( cruise in hyperspeed without using afterburner).
Eurofighter: It can achieve very high speeds.
SU 37 & SU 30: When you have extreme maneuverability capabilities & large loadout you loose in speed.

.Avionics:

1st: F22
2nd: Eurofighter
3rd: SU 37
4rth: Su 30

F22: It comes first because it simply has the best avionics systems even to be put in a fighter.
Eurofighter: It has very handy avionics systems and features a lot of automations
SU 37 & SU 30: Not the most impressive aircraft interior and avionics. They could have done better.

.Stealth:
1st: SU 37
2nd: SU 30
3rd: F22
4rth: Eurofighter

SU 37 & Su 30: They come in first and second place. No iam not crazy neither i am friend with the russians but they have plasma stealth. This is a very new technology and very few is known about it. A small plasma generator is fitted in the plane and when needed it produces plasma which absorbs 98% of radar signals and sends back a bird like mark impossible to be on any radar screen. Rumors say that it is dangerous for pilots but the russians do not really care about it they just want to be the best.
F22: It doesn’t come first in stealth because stealth system has proven to be useless. Modern russian radars can track these aircrafts and shoot them down. Check out the S-300 & S-400 anti air missile systems. The americans must figue out something new. Stealth technology originated from Ex. Soviet Union but it was proven to be really easy to track it so it was left over. And the last thing to mantion is that the both the SU’s even with full loadout stay invisible but the Raptor looses its stealth with external weapons.
Eurofighter: it comes last in because it hasn’t got Stealth capabilities.

This is the reality i know that many people who are going to read it will not like it but this is the truth.
And yet these numbers mean nothing because the pilots capabilities are those who make the difference. American pilots have the most hours in real combat and dogfights but Russian pilots are especially trained like no other pilots.

There is no actual way to find Which of the above aircrafts is the best but the general conclusion is that they all are wonders of modern avionics.

Seems to me that some people on here know what they are talking about. The F-22 was designed to be stealthy, while still very maneuverable, and not be detected while being a superior fighter. Yes the SU-30 is quite impressive and my first reaction was, “Wow! Why don’t we build stuff like that?” But now I realize why we don’t. We have the best for the job we do. That job is taking out the bad guy, not building air show quality fighters. Last I checked a plane had to be picked up on radar before it could be shot down right? So the maneuverability of a jet means nothing if it can be snuck up on and picked off. Why the USAF is the best? Technology…. Our Avionics can’t be matched. USAF pilots are the best in the world by far also. Our F-15 can still handle any job we have for a fighter anyway. The F-22 is just our ace in the hole. But why need anything new when none of our F-15’s have ever been shot down in a dog fight? I guess the stealth issue comes into play again.

I flew A-7D Corsairs and F-16C Block 30 with the GE engine and here is some input. First, saying which is “Best” has been debated for every generation of aircraft. P-51 Mustang Vs P-38 Lighting, F-16 vs F-15 etc. Which is better, a Ferrari or Corvette? Depends what you want to do with it, who is driving/flying it, and can the person/country afford to keep feeding it?

The Russians have done an impressive job with high Aoa (angle of attack) maneuvering. The F-18 below 300 knots was better then the F-16, why? The F-18 had better high Aoa capabilities and didn’t have the flight computer to limit you out like the F-16 does at slower speeds. But once you are slow at high Aoa your drag goes up so high that sooner or later you will be a sitting duck so you don’t want to stay there very long.

From a cost/design stand point I hate to admit but the Russians have some better ideas. If you can build and fly 2-5 more “slightly inferior” (again depends on the items mentioned above) aircraft to one F-22 who will win? I would take 2-5 more airplanes any day over the highest tech state of the art aircraft. We didn’t win the cold war because of technology, we won the war because of economics…the USSR just couldn’t sustain the cost to stay up with us… at least back then.

If Russia can have a stronger economy and can sustain more aircraft/military might then what would happen?

Yet another aspect of this whole thing is God’s hand. I know; pretty strange concept coming from a fighter pilot but statistically Israel didn’t have a chance in the past wars yet they keep winning. There is more to who or what “is the best” then statistics and performance alone.

Come to think of it, the only thing that was pulling the F-22 along as a respectable modern fighter was its stealth capability. Now the Su-37 has it beaten in that, too with this new plasma technology. I’m telling you, if the Russians put everything they currently know about jet combat into one craft, the result would be utterly frightening.

Wow an entire page full of pointless arguments. No one out there has all the facts on any of these planes. Reading off statistical information from internet sources is insufficient to rate these craft against one another. The thing that amazes me the most is how everyone is so caught up in the way each craft can maneuver. The advanced weapon systems and radar of each craft are designed for long range kills. I would hope there would be more focus on such factors. Problem is many of the “important” details about each craft is still classified. Even if you do manage to find some tid-bit of information, there is no way you can confirm it.

At what range can each craft detect one another.
At what range can each craft successfully engage the other.

Other factors come into play that sway the battle in each crafts favor. For example home turf advantage, being able to utilize ground based radar/detection methods to detect the other craft in advanced.

In the end everyone needs to step back and look at the big picture. Odds are these planes will never go toe to toe in a dog fighting scenario.

David, I agree with you about cost… that’s why we have F35 coming. To adress the very thing you said. But on the other hand, if the Raptor sees 3-5 targets before they see it, ALL five of them are toast..

It is easily the f 22 that is better becasue 3/4 of the stuff the raptor can do is not even on this video so you can not just tell from the monuverability you see on the video, half the turns that the raptor can do in a dogfight can not be shown at an airshow, because of the altitude, and by the way for any of you brits that say the eurofighter is the best it isnt, i mean come on it took 4 nations to develop it and it sitll isnt the best.

The f-22 can carry more than 2 bombs in the internal weapons bays. Along with the bombs, in the ground combat configuration, it also carries 2 AIM-120 missiles and 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders. The f-22 is much more maneuverable than all of these other planes. The stealth capabilities actually make it more maneuverable. The stealth characteristics make it very unstable which makes it more maneuverable. It will shoot you down from 130 miles away and you will have no clue what happened. And please don’t try to lie and tell me that the su-37 can out-turn missiles, the AIM-9X Sidewinder has thrust vectoring and can do many more g than the pilot can.

The world’s most capable fighter is, without a doubt, the Cessna 172, but only if it has hard points installed so it can carry those large Tijuana bottle rockets, has the markings of the Indian Air Force, and is piloted by anoop.

anoop, below is a shortened list of trivial accomplishments the USA has somehow completed even with our inferior education and math skills; even though yours is the superior intellect, it would be nice if you gave us a little credit.

It would also be nice if India laid out Pakistan. What is the hold-up? Use that omnipotent, Indian Air Force of yours.

January 31, 1958 - Explorer 1, the first U.S. satellite in orbit, lifts off at Cape Canaveral using a modified ABMA-JPL Jupiter-C rocket. It carries a scientific experiment of James A. Van Allen, and discovers the Earth’s radiation belt.

March 17, 1958 - Vanguard 1 satellite is launched into orbit, and continues to transmit for 3 years.

March 3, 1959 - Pioneer 4, fourth U.S.-IGY space probe was launched by a Juno II rocket, and achieved an earth-moon trajectory, passing within 37,000 miles of the moon. It then fell into a solar orbit, becoming the first U.S. sun orbiter.

April 1, 1960 - Tiros 1, the first successful weather satellite, is launched by the U.S.

December 21, 1968 - Apollo 8 is launched with Frank Borman, James A. Lovell, Jr. and William A. Anders, the first Apollo to use the Saturn V rocket, and the first manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon, making 10 orbits on its 6-day mission.

July 20, 1969 - Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. make the first manned soft landing on the Moon, and the first moonwalk, using Apollo 11.

January 31, 1971 - Apollo 14 moon mission is launched by the U.S. with the legendary Alan Shepard, along with Stuart Roosa and Edgar Mitchell on board. They land in the planned Apollo 13 site, the Fra Mauro highlands, which they explore with the help of a two-wheeled cart that permits the transport of a significantly greater quantity of lunar material than previous missions. Shepard becomes the first man to hit a golf ball on the moon.

May 30, 1971 - The United States launches Mariner 9, which becomes the first spacecraft to survey Mars from orbit.

July 30, 1971 - Apollo 15 astronauts David Scott and James Irwin drive the first moon rover. The next year, Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt drives a similar rover.

November 13, 1971 - American Mariner 9 (launched May 30, 1971) is the first spacecraft to orbit another planet, Mars. Over the next year, it maps 100 percent of the Martian surface.

March 2, 1972 - Pioneer 10 is launched on an Atlas/Centaur/TE364-4 towards Jupiter by the U.S., designed to familiarize alien life with humans. It returns the first close-up images of Jupiter in 1973.

July 15, 1972 - Pioneer 10 becomes the first man-made object to travel through the asteroid belt.

April 5, 1973 - Pioneer 11 is launched on an Atlas/Centaur/TE364-4, flying past Jupiter in 1974, and Saturn in 1979, where it discovers new rings.

May 14, 1973 - Skylab Workshop is launched by the U.S., and maintained by three crews.

May 25, 1973 - First crew to Skylab, Skylab 2, are launched, repairing damage incurred to Skylab during its launch.

November 3, 1973 - American Mariner 10 is launched, on the first dual-planet mission. Over the next year, it returned photographs of Venus and Mercury.

August, 1990 - U.S. spacecraft Magellan arrives at Venus, where for the next year it took radar images of the surface.

October 6, 1990 - Space Shuttle Discovery launches the Ulysses spacecraft with two upper stages, on mission STS-41. Ulysses flies toward Jupiter, to be slingshot towards the sun, to obtain data from high solar latitudes.

April 5, 1991 - Space Shuttle Atlantis carries the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory into orbit. This new space telescope, built by NASA, was the first to provide an all-sky continuous survey in the gamma-ray and X-ray spectra.

February 8, 1992 - Spacecraft Ulysses flies around Jupiter, on its way to the sun.

September 13, 1994 - Spacecraft Ulysses reaches a maximum Southern latitude of 80.2 degrees at the sun, proceeding towards the Northern latitudes, maintaining an orbital period of six years.

December 7, 1995 - The Galileo spacecraft arrives at Jupiter, performing an orbit while dropping a probe into the atmosphere, and putting a satellite into orbit, which will spend the next two years orbiting the planet.

February 11, 1997 - Space Shuttle Discovery lifts off on the second maintenance mission for the Hubble Space Telescope, installing a new spectrograph, infrared camera, new guidance sensors, a new computer and data recorder, and repairing the telescope’s insulation.
March 31, 1997 - After 25 years of operation, routine telemetry and ground control with Pioneer 10 is terminated. The probe at that moment is 6.7 billion miles from Earth, traveling at 28,000 miles per hour. In two million years, it will reach the red giant Aldeberan in the constellation of Taurus.

June 27, 1997 - NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) probe passes the asteroid Mathilde on its way to meeting up with 433 Eros.

July 4, 1997 - Mars Pathfinder becomes the first probe to successfully land on Mars since Viking 2 in 1976. It is also the first planetary probe to include a separate roving robot probe (Sojourner) since the Soviet Union’s Luna 21 in 1973.

September 12, 1997 - Mars Global Surveyor arrives at Mars and begins the process of adjusting its highly elliptical orbit into a circular one using aerobraking - friction with the top of the Martian atmosphere to slow the craft down. Taking about 2,000 images of the planet, this probe shows the entire life of a dust storm, evidence of Martian streams, ponds, oceans, and underground water drainage systems.

October 15, 1997 - launch of the double probe Cassini/Huygens, aimed at Saturn. This is probably the most ambitious and complex unmanned planetary project ever attempted, costing more than $2.5 billion and involving 17 nations and hundreds of scientists from the U.S. and Europe. It carries a sophisticated camera package and 11 other instruments aimed at performing 19 experiments on the ringed planet. It will arrive at Saturn in 2004, will orbit Saturn up to 60 times sending back close-up photographs of Saturn’s rings and its 18 moons. Cassini also carries a separate probe, Huygens. This probe will be dropped through the atmosphere of Saturn’s largest moon, Titan.

January 7, 1998 - Lunar Prospector is the first NASA mission to the Moon in 25 years, and the first dedicated to lunar research since Apollo 17 in 1972. The spacecraft is placed in lunar orbit to make a careful spectroscopic analysis of the entire lunar surface, including its North and South poles, and soon confirms what the Department of Defense Clementine mission had found in 1994 - that trapped within some of the craters at the Moon’s two poles is about 6.6 trillion tons of permanently frozen water ice.

October 24, 1998 - NASA launches Deep Space 1, a technology test spacecraft which evaluates a dozen advanced spacecraft engineering designs, from mirror-enhanced solar panels to the first use of an ion engine to leave Earth orbit and rendezvous with the asteroid Braille.

February 7, 1999 - The NASA satellite Stardust lifts off for a rendezvous with the Comet Wild-2 in January of 2004.

July 28, 1999 - Deep Space 1 flies to within 16 miles of the asteroid Braille and continues on its course to rendezvous with Comet Wilson-Harrington in January 2001.

January 3, 2000 - the Galileo space probe safely completes its encounter with Jupiter’s ice moon, Europa, at an altitude of 343 km. Later in the year, on May 30, Galileo flies by Jupiter’s largest moon Ganymede at an altitude of 808 km.

February 14, 2000 - NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) probe settles into orbit around the asteroid 433 Eros, producing a series of stunning close-up images. Ground controllers start tightening its orbit for an eventual soft impact with the tumbling, potato-shaped asteroid.

February 14, 2001 - NEAR soft impacts on the asteroid 433 Eros, at 2 m/s. Signals continue to be received from the probe hours after the landing, confirming its survival.

April 7, 2001 - the 2001 Mars Odyssey probe is launched on a trajectory for Mars orbit to be achieved in October, with a mission similar to that of the Mars Climate Orbiter launched December 1998. Mars Odyssey successfully enters Mars orbit on October 24th.

June 30, 2001 - NASA’s Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) is launched on a trajectory for a gravity boost past the moon to a position 1.5 million km outside Earth’s orbit. From that position it is to measure cosmic background radiation from the dark extragalactic sky.

most of you guys are rite for your personal choices! f22 raptor superb very stealthy su37 ingenious to say based on old technology eurofighter most agile without vectored thrust wich one is the best they all are!!! just need to combine agility with technology and reliability !! simple best lets combine them all toghether!!

I have to say about the comments about being the best, The wars they have fought on their own they have lost , They either have the Brits get them out the shit, or come in towards the end and take all the glory.

F-22’s radar signature is a joke in front of su-47 berkuts plasma screen. Hands down Su-47 is the best plane existing. And as usual americans are always reluctant to accept the reality so go on and keep whining or go watch some rambo movie hahahahahaha.

The F-22 has been tested again and again and again for decades in simulations against other fighters, both foreign and domestic, and has prevailed every time. As for which nation has the best pilots that is probably difficult to say, I’m sure they are all exceptionally skilled and let’s hope they are never pitted against each other in a full scale escalation.

Everyone here is missing a couple of thing. Factors which should always be considered. MTBF (Mean time between failures), Maintainability, industrial robustness, depth of knowledge, etc…

Lets discuss the SU series. Who makes them? Russia. Even if many countries around the world buy them, what will be the availability of parts? The MTBF’s of SU aircraft are horrific. It takes at least 10:1 maintenance hours to flight hours. As for the maneuverability. The Russians are known for their antics. The SU “Cobra maneuver was accomplished by upsetting the weight and balance of the aircraft specifically for airshow. Stability in Russia is awful. Who knows if the industrial complex can maintain these AC for the years to come.

Now the F22. A complex wonder operated by the best. I have met and worked with many. It is my job to know. This plane is amazing. I don’t understand how so many, without first hand knowledge can make such strong statements about things that don’t have first hand knowledge about. Air Force pilots are good. (Although I would take a Naval or Marine Pilot any day) American engineering is great. The incredible thing about technology is the ability to take a vast array of complex inputs and simplify it to a easy to read and understand situational Awareness display. This give the pilots the the ability to do what he or see does best - FLY. You no longer need to be able to manage the computational load in your head like before. So now you have the time to fly, and fly great. You cannot just look at the plane any more. You have to look at all of the surrounding factors.

BTW - If you had a multi-billion dollar highly classified, stealthy, highly maneuverable aircraft at an international airshow, would you show the world exactly what you could do. It is always best to keep some things to yourself.

Because of its stealth the F22 can use turn in place manuvering. But no pilot in a 4th or 4.5 generation fighter is going to shed all his kinetic energy to do a “Cobra” or any other airshow manuver. He’d be a sitting duck. To do those in the first place requires slowing way down. ACM dictates you must maintain your energy. So barrel rolls and Hi/Lo yo yos are used to reverse position. With super cruise and stealth the Raptor can enter the battle zone do its deed and be gone maintaining MAch 1.6 for most of the time.

In a close in dog fight I’d want to be in the F15C. Thrust to weight 1.30:1 at full air to air mode(-229 engine). Wing loading 30% lower than any SU. Now with AESA phased array radar. Can maintain tighter turns at speed up: up to 7g at mach 1.6 ( Energy management) than any SU. The new Silent Eagle with conformal weapons bays will be even more deadly.

p.s. US pilots are the best maybe the Israelis are too. Many Air Force pilots TDY to Navy carriers. The US Navy/Marine pilots are the ONLY pilots in the world to ( and who can) operator day or night in any weather from an air craft carrier. These guys and one lady are the best stick and rudder guys on the planet. You mount them up in an F22 or and F15 C and look out.

If we are talking about who survives the battle it has to be the raptor…you can’t kill what you can’t see…however if you are talking about dog fighting (manovering)the termanator gets my vote. But sheer performance as in supersonic cruse and stelph everyone knows that you cannot beat the raptor. You can do double loops and tail slides all day long…but in the thick of the battle the true pilot will adhear to the basics…attack from out of the sun (or in this case with stelph) from the rear and destroy the eneamy. only planes built with survival in mind will come back intact. It is still impossable to out run bullets and missles. to be seen is to be dead. Avionics is the whole idea…in my humble openion.

Its good to see the discussion, however are we talking about air supremacy , sustainable warfare, or 1 versus 1. Currently there are 187 F-22 manufactured and apparantely that is were production stops. Maintanance costs for a F-22 are USD 55.000 for every flying hour. The RAM (paint) cannot withstand water for a long period of time, ultimately resulting in a larger cross section. Fighting a war is pumping money into it, how long can it be maintained. Enginering feats by all parties. High tech US aircraft, robust russian aircraft, chalk and cheese and the outcome is highly dependant on the scenario, 1-1, all out war etc.

In regard to pilots, speak to US fighter boys, look at their deployments past and present. I know dutch F-16’s had a phenomal kill ratio in the MED on a training execise against F-14’s. Yes yes only when it came to the dogfights and the BVR missiles were depleated. Never ever under estimate your adversary. Check out how well the old A-4 did at FWS as an adversary trainer. In the right hands and right tactics it gave F-16’s a run for its money.

But all n all imagine how much a government could spend on its own people if we didnt need all this military hardware. and dont start about 9-11 war on terror and threats. Huge amount of civilians have died because of terrorism and fighting terrorism.

F22 wins handsdown, any of you idiots who think the eurofighter of Su’s can compete should explain to me how you can destroy something you cannot see. The stealth capabilities of the aircraft along with its superior maneuverability would be plenty overwhelming for any fighter in the world. Just wait and see and most of the idiots will shut up about this whole thing.

All of them have specific characteristics that make them unique in specific areas.
Both F-22 and SU-37 can super-cruise (reach supersonic speeds without afterburner use).

F-22 has stealth capabilities far superior than the other aircrafts, yet both SU-37 and SU-30 have superior maneuverability that is perfect for low altitude dogfights which means a lot in enclosed air-space with natural obstacles.

On the other hand F-22 the advantage in open areas because of the superior radar range, supersonic speed and stealth but it has far more limited ammo-carrying capabilities from every other aircraft in the test (I think 4 missiles max in internal bays), on the other hand SU-30 shines in this area with the largest carrying capabilities among the four followed by Eurofighter.

Eurofighter has the lowest maintenance cost and it can achieve quite good maneuverability without vectored thrust I’d say it is the ultimate example of the old school fighter aircrafts commonly used in Europe. It comes second in carrying capabilities with decent radar, speed and maneuvering. What it lacks in stealth capabilities is complemented with advanced ECM systems.

Now to answer to your question, the best depends on three factors.
First your national terrain, in areas full with physical obstacles F-22 lacks because it doesn’t have enough space to achieve maximum speed at low altitudes. The other three are simply too good and for such terrains the Sukhoi are the best.

Second refueling capabilities, for the U.S. with its aircraft carrier fleet and Sweden with its grid of airfields the F22 would shine because it can enter the objective area, do its job and quickly refuel/load on ammo and take off again. (If I remember right Sweden’s airfield grid can even use normal avenues as runways which is perfect for hit and run tactics.)

Third maintenance costs, what good is an aircraft if you can’t afford to repair it and Eurofighter is at its prime in this area, busted engine you can use parts from Saab, Rols Royce etc. engines found in older European aircrafts. Frame-jobs Eurofighter can use parts from Viggen, Grippen or even Mirage F1 with some tweaks here and there.

Good point with the Eurofighters, Regrs. They are very much cheaper to produce and maintain than the Su’s and way more than the outrageous 1 billion of the Raptors. One of the primary reasons America succeeded in WWII was Because of the very low production costs of the M1A1 Thompson and the Sherman Tank. Sheer numbers can be a crude but undoubtedly effective wartime method.

P.S. I’ve also noticed a deteriorating amount of intelligent debate in this blog.
This must change, people.

Yawn! The guy cant spell. However you are right, everyone(except maybe 3) on here has no clue of what they speak including you, unless you or they have high level clearance. I laugh every time i come on here and read these googled BS responses. Its stupid to think that any country would release full details on their current Fighters. Please stop basing your opinion of shitty airplane video games and watered down, very restricted, seriously combed over/dissected web sites that claim to have military info on classified planes that for some reason anyone can have. I’m sure some of you will say you have clearance but lets face it, if you did you wouldn’t really tell us what you know at risk of losing your livelihood. Thank-you Mini Dude…….hey what color is your mom’s basement and when do you plan on moving out of it.

Lol, firstly, since when has “maneuverability” been a “key” factor into air superiority throughout the history of dog fight/air supremacy? Care to name? Look at WWII with the Zero’s vs Mustang’s…Zero’s “HAD” better maneuverability, while the Mustang did not, however the outcome was evident and please don’t “claim” that the japanese didn’t have good pilots, because talking to WWII vets, they had PHENOMENAL pilots from the Red Sun during the WWII Era.

Look at the Mig’s of the 50’s, and you’ll notice the Russian model was vastly superior to the US model in maneuverability and look at the kill ratio between those and you’ll notice the US were the heavy, heavy favorites.

How about the F-15 Eagle, vs other far more maneuverable airplanes in contrast to itself, as far as up to date within the US, they have a perfect No Loss Ratio using this airplane. So the idea that “maneuverability” will be a huge advantage is simply laughable, when the very best planes from histories past were not even the best maneuverable airplane. Let’s put this out, simply put, the F-22 is THE PLANE of the Present and Future, period.

The stealth capability is huge, because it’s nearly impossible at this point unless you KNOW first hand of the technology of the stealth on the F-22, otherwise, on radar, it looks like a flock of geese or less, which is what makes it incredibly difficult to detect. The angles in which the plane is made makes it nearly impossible to detect, because the wave lengths are being knocked out at all different angles, giving it almost next to no volume. Look at SU-37 model, and you’ll notice it will be detected from air to air or air to ground radar, which will give it a huge disadvantage. Remember folks, being a air craft fighter doesn’t involve just whats in the “air”, this is what gives the F-22 is significant advantage over all other 5th generation air fighters.

You add in the fact, that whomever see’s who first and shoots first is the Winner. That notion has been proven in MODERN aviation war, and to those that still somehow claim “maneuverability” will win out is honestly kidding themselves. Prove to me where maneuverability has beaten out first see, first shoot on a consistent basis and I’ll retract my statement. Maneuverability is great, however it is NOT going to be a significant advantage, in today’s age, who can’t be seen, and who can see first, and shoot first are going to have the significant advantage here.

Hands down, the F-22 Raptor is at the top of the 5th Generation Air Fighters.

Hmmmm, let’s see……last time guns on a jet were used to take out another jet? 35 years ago. I guess that means agility will only get you so far. It’s all about who shows up on radar first. Guess that means the Raptor wins. F22 VS F15 100-0, F22 VS F-16 34-0, F22 vs f-18 26-0. You can’t hit what you can’t see. Ask any fighter pilot, first one to get a locked shot off wins 95% of the time.

What stealth capabilities are you talking about? Remember Kosovo, stealth fighter was shot down by air defence system built more than 50 years ago (they just didnt know it was stealth fighter) Its enough to change radio wave length and your f22 is visible That’s what russians do About 9 years ago, two SU 27 flew over US aircraft during their so called trainings in the pacific ocean close to Russian border, and SU27 were detected only visually when they flew over!!! but not by radars Any other questions about stealth capabilities

make this sweet and to the point, Euro fighter v’s the top guns of the USA, they played there little war games and it was f15 v’s euro fighter, the americans as always speak first with all there might ” Hey we will wipe the floor with your so called most advanced plane as your piolets are not that great, it was a 4 v 4 games, it lasted 35 minutes euro fighter won without single loss…what does that prove?

Every experienced airman knows their aircraft accounts for only 30% or so toward a successful aerial dogfight. Pilot training, innate airmanship savvy, and “guts” make the difference. During WWII (known as the Great Patriotic War to our Russian friends), during the Battle of Britain more-experienced RAF pilots stood successfully using dated and battle-worn aircraft against German aircraft that many historians consider technologically superior. Study history to foresee the future.

The answer to “Which one is the best jet fighter in the world?” is simple: whichever aircraft is flown by the most skilled pilot will win every time.

I salute ALL the pilots in these sequences, as they do things that seem to defy the laws of aeronautics. I see no cowards, and many potential heroes, among all the pilots flying these aircraft. The dead-stick flat spins executed by the Russian pilots in both the SU-37 and the SU-30, and also the pilot of the US F-22, are daring and impressive for anyone who understands the inherent dangers in such maneuvers.

My prayer is that none of these amazing aircraft will ever be flown for other than peaceful demonstration and deterrence purposes.

Over all the F-22 has the tactical advantages over the others. Its stealth and avionics make it way out of any other aircraft’s league. Some of the others may be a little more maneuverable, and perhaps in a low altitude dog fight may be the better plane, but that’s not what the F-22 was designed to do. Even if it was in that situation, it could definitely hold its own.

The Gnats were used again by India in the Bangladesh Liberation War against Pakistan.[17][18] The most notable action was the Battle of Boyra where the first dogfights over East Pakistan (Bangladesh) took place. The IAF Gnats downed two PAF Canadair Sabres in minutes and badly damaged one. The Pakistan Air Force claims that one Gnat was shot down, which was proved incorrect. Another notable dogfight involving a Gnat was over Srinagar airfield where a lone Indian pilot held out against six Sabres,[19] scoring hits on two of the Sabres in the process,[20][21] before being overwhelmed. Gnat pilot Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon was posthumously honoured with Param Vir Chakra (India’s highest gallantry award), becoming the only member of the IAF to be given the award.

“Sabre Slayer”

By the end of 1971, the Gnat proved to be a frustrating opponent for the technically superior Sabres and had lived up to its Indian Air Force nickname of “Sabre Slayers” since all its combat “kills” during the two wars were against Sabres.[22][23] The Canadair Sabre Mk 6 was widely regarded as the best dogfighter of its era.[8][24][25] Tactics called for Gnats taking on the Sabres in the vertical arena, where they were at a disadvantage. Moreover, because the Gnat was lightweight and compact in shape, it was hard to see, especially at low levels where most of the dogfights took place.[11] Apart from air defence operations, the aircraft performed multiple roles in the Bangladesh Liberation War, being used in anti-shipping operations, ground attack, bomber/transport escort and close air support with “devastating effects” on the PAF.[17][18] The success of the indigenously produced Gnats against the more sophisticated Pakistani-flown planes was viewed as a significant achievement.[26]

This is a good example of pilot and tactics > the aircraft you are flying in.
Don’t think “stealth” means invisible or 100% undetectable.

All these pretty slow speed manoeuvres are neat. Ask any fighter pilot if he is going to use them, however. Likely not. Speed is life. Who can go fast and not bleed E when executing BFM. THAT is the one that is the best.

On top of that, who has the superior BVR platform. If you blow up your adversary before he is within 20 kilometers of you, the fights OVER.

f22 can do a cobra plus better a slinky which su 37cannot do dynamically. Which bird will prounce on cobra with it claws take it into the air and drop it out of the sky and it will die. Have you ever seen a slinky, i did and it is very impressive ha ha try and do a cobra on a raptur f22 as it is in nature, so it will be in the air old fashion word called AIRPOWER NOT AIRSHOW HA HA WATCH YOUR SIX. dont bug out Sandman.

In truth they are all great aircraft….but until they are combat proven this is all for nothing. We do not live in a world where great dogfights such as those in Vietnam or Korea prove a true superior aircraft/pilot. These days it’s all technology driven. Can you honestly tell me that America can launch a sustained all out air war using F-22’s….too expensive and the losses will be too great. Soon there will be replacements of F-15 bringing up the slack. The Sukhoi is a real machine and although in many ways outdated they are in service in other models in countries where they will facing off against Hornets,Falcons or Mirages in neighboring countries should hostilities break out. The Euro fighter is a fine machine but when will it see combat other than in joint operations supporting F-15 etc. We should be having this discussion in 10 to 20 years like how they can correctly and accurately talk about the the MiG-21, F-4 or Mirage now.

well some of these may have the best maneuverability that others, only about 1 out of 10 aerial encounters end through some sort of dogfight which means that most kills will be at long range. I’d have to go with the Raptor because of its stealth and newly equipped and advanced long range missiles. Many of the other planes will be falling to the ground in flames before they even see the f 22, and then the hard part begins.

Okay hang on the best aircraft will be flown by the best pilots, there is loads of skilled pilots in the world but I think we all no the RAF is superior through discipline and secondly I am gonna say Eurofighter becuase it’s a multipurpose fighter and with it’s wing span can. Carry a lot more than F22 wich by the way. If it had to do a long flight it would have to put the petrol containers outside removing it’s stealth ability wich only works against other aircraft most ground units can locate it and last but not least the eurofighter is being made lots of tecnological advances but that are still prototypes so well find out if they decide to use them and becuase the UK and the US are such close allies we will never truly be able to rival the planes becuase we will never be at war with each other ohh hang on apparently the US are selling F22 to japan WTF. that about do you want to get killed by your own plane if we went to war .

I read almost every reply in this discussion. There has been some incredibly idiotic statements made. I’m going to address the ones that needed addressing the most.

Pilot vs pilot issue. This is something that can not be determined. When it comes right down to it math won’t be an issue simply because why would you have your pilot trying to do complicated math when his computer system could do it for him? So, with that in mind, I’d like to state how human competition works. We are all on average very similar. Their is a statistical average for almost everything we do. Some of us are a bit better some are a bit worse. When your talking about taking the best of the best from across the world it won’t be human ability that comes out on top. It will simply be experience verses experience. Which pilots spent more time in the air training. Which pilot can hold it together better under pressure. I am from the United States and if there is one thing that we have, it’s the ability to be ignorantly brave lol. So, pilot vs pilot will really just come down to who has trained and has more experience.

Now, jet vs jet issue. This is very simple and I know that the rest of the world doesn’t like to hear this because it seems like the same ol “America thinks it’s better than everyone else” bullcrap. The raptor in real world modern warfare will win that majority of it’s fights. The raptor changed the way that fighters will be used and the rest of the world would be wise to learn from it. The fact that it has stealth capability gives the raptor complete dominance in the air. I saw the statements made that other nations have developed new radar systems etc. but you fail to realize that being the first nation to develop stealth jets also means that we were the first nation to try to build better radar systems to detect such jets. So, we didn’t test the raptor against aged radar systems. They are put through the ringer of the best that we have which is more than likely as good or better than anything else on the planet. So, even if the other jets can maneuver possibly better than the raptor really means nothing. Our pilots can detect the other jets and if they get spotted by some random event they can just high altitude out run them, gain stealth, then re-engaged = game over. In real world situation the raptor wins hands down.

Now, for the segment where someone talked about the United States war record. Do you honestly think for a minute that Russia was going to stop Hitler? If the United States had not have gotten into the war then Hitler would have eventually taken the UK and Russia. If that had happened and his power continued to grow then he could have taken the United States because before pearl harbor we were really not ready for war. We took the industrial might and targeted our war machine with everything it had. What was accomplished was simply amazing. We didn’t go into that war the most powerful nation on the planet….that war made us the most powerful nation on the planet by pushing our industrial war machine.

Now for a closing statement. The United States begins developing it’s top secret weapons 20-30 years before they ever show it to the public. The top secret tech that they never show is what you really have to wonder about. When comparing military powers you have to really sit back and think for a while. The U.S. has enjoyed 6 years of peace. This peace was completely uninterrupted time for technologies to be developed behind closed doors. What is behind those doors would blow your minds.

I will be much safer if I was in the pilot seat of the SU -37, After spending billions of tax payer’s dollar, all they come up is a crap F-22, and use some excuse to said it’s it’s super but expensive, we’re not going to build more… Shame..

okay, let’s start with COST. Back in WWII, Germany had Russia on the run, Russia makes the Yak-9. So incredibly cheap and quick to build, that although inferior to the German fighters in terms of technology, the low cost allowed them to outnumber the Germans 6 to 1, and they were more maneuverable. So the Su series fighters, have that advantage over the F-22.

Now, let’s talk about first to see = first to kill. That’s why the US designed the F-14 with the AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. the F-14D has radar capabilities (in terms of range) similar to an AWACS jet, and can track and lock onto more targets than any other jet. NATO banned the AIM-54 to be used for offensive strikes, but the point is still you don’t have to be stealth to get the first shot; there are a lot cheaper ways. F-15 = $28 mil, F-14 = $38 mil, F-117 = $120 mil, F-22 $???? (too expensive, not allowed to export).

Lastly, just as a side note. Which pilots are better? abilities range from pilot to pilot, but in general US and Russia are about equal in ability, and are BETTER than any other country. That’s in general (ie. the average pilot). Also, I just read an article 2 days ago, that the US announced between the year 2020 & 2030 they plan to make all fighters, tankers, spy planes / bombers, autonomous (robot controlled — not remote guided). The F-22’s would be retired, and there would be a few pilots flying F-35’s but they would be overseeing the battle more than participating in it.

As many have said before, Sukhoi are the best here, and maybe the Eurofighter are the second, but the Sukhoi are the first. About the deisign: the F-22 is beautiful. Search for videos on Youtube about the Sukhois and realize how easily they do things that F-22 can’t do or has difficulty to do, and realize why there are maneauvers that have Russian pilots’ names. Search for videos like “Sukhoi nothing comes close”. I don’t understand why there are so many people saying that F22 are the best, anyone who takes a deep look into then should understand easily they’re not. PS: I’m not Russian, I’m European, I like the Eurofighter a lot also and of course like the F22, but tecnically prefer the Sukhois.

why wasn’t the super hornet in there? blue angels always prove just how devistating that plane can be. in real live air combat, they’ve proven that it’s superior over land and sea. that’s something that some of these other superjets fail at….over sea combat.

many of you who, thinks the f 22 is better because of stealt how failed to KNOW that its not completly stealthy, infact not at all except for 3 world countrys. the russians With their IRST latest technology can spot the f-22 from at least 70 km. so stuff if with the stealth thing. its already old teknologi. wake up! its 2010 not the freaking 1990. i suggest some fysisk reqarding to all you ignorents who think its stealth pff. i myself promise then to take some more english spelling hours.

I thought that the SU-37 and the F-22 Raptor were the best. I wondered what would be the result of the F-22’s stealth and the Su-37’s maneuverability combined into one plane. The Su-37 was pretty maneuverable but I liked how elegant the Raptor looked while flying. THe Raptor had hardly any contrails that the SU-37 had a lot of. THe contrails made the SU-37 look like it was resisting the air while the Raptor looked like it was gliding through it. Overall, SU-37 and Raptor were the best. But my vote would be in the Raptor.

Even Wikipedia has mention of the Cope-India 04 war games with the Su-30MKI and other planes up against the F-15. It also references the first joint exercises with the RAF (Wiki the Su-30MKI) against the Eurofighter Typhoon. In both of those joint exercises, one side or the other were told they could not use certain pieces of equipment that could have given them a certain advantage. The RAF pilots admitted that the Su-30 was more maneuverable than the Typhoon and the American pilots had high praise for their Indian counterparts. If you read the Wiki you will also find that they are now producing a missle that targets AWACs types of systems which would put the F22’s stealthy abilities at risk if it needs to turn on its own radar systems.

I saw the Su-27 at an airshow in the early 1990’s at CFB Trenton in Ontario. I, along with all of the US, RAF, and Canadian pilots (including Gulf War 1 combat veterans) who observed, were very impressed with this aircraft and its abilities in the hands of one of its top pilots. Other than in videos, I have not had the pleasure of observing the other planes being put through their paces.

Many have previously mentioned this but it deserves reiteration. It all comes down to a good pilot using the advantages that their aircraft has to their enhance their combined combat abilities (pilot and plane). To not do so is foolish and in a time of war would have deadly consequences.

In a missle shoot, the guy with the longest range weapons systems (detection, lock and firing) will likely win, even against countermeasures. Even in WW2, it was often the pilot who could spot the enemy farthest away who won because they could get in place to take tactical advantage before the fight had even begun (read Gen Chuck Yeagers book or anything written by the old aces if you doubt this). In a dogfight, the pilot who knows how to get the best out of their plane can still come out on top even if certain aspects of its performance are outmatched by the enemy. Its all about that combination of man and machine and how well they can work together.

At one point this discussion unfortunately degenerated to a bunch of chest beating tarzans trying to out do each other as to which countries pilots are better than the others. It also often included some very derogatory remarks about the intelligence of the inhabitants of certain countries in an attempt to counter some of the boastful claims. Shame on all of you who partcipated in those commentaries. Every country will have pilots who are better and worse than others but each pilot who straps on one of these amazing machines has my deepest respect combined with more than just a little jealousy.

For those of you who should know better, one of the key turning points in WW2 was the outcome of the Battle of Britian. Yes, once again it was all about pilots, this time in their Hurricanes and Spitfires. The losses they inflicted on the Luftwaffe helped to stop any invasion plans that Hitler had because you cannot effectively do a sea crossing without air superiority to protect them. Combined with the Lend/Lease program and the eventual official entry of the US into the actual fighting, after being on the receiving end another act that demonstrated the power of air superiority, it was all a matter of time before the tide turned against the Axis powers.

On a quick note, I thinks it interesting that the F22 has gone back to internal stores (for stealth purposes). This concept was part of many 1950/60’s (ie Delta Dart) jet designs including the AVRO Arrow (I guess you can now tell which country I live in). Now there was a plane that could have had an interesting history had it not been cancelled and prototypes destroyed. A 1958 jet that did Mach 1.98 at 3/4 throttle with a test engine that was scheduled to be replaced by something more powerful could have done some beautiful things. But then again, if that twist of fate had not occurred, it is not likely the US space program would have happened the way it did.

I realize that the pilot usually determines how an air plane flies, but one advantage that America has now lost with its fighter capability that other military’s can still boast about is range. With the retiring of the Tomcat, and the soon to be finished F-22, the U.S. no longer has a fighter that can penetrate into deep enemy territory without burning too much fuel. If the US were to engage the Chinese, or have to deal with the Russians again in the future, the US would not have a fighter that can dogfight after penetrating deep into enemy territory without running out of gas. Even with the modifications made to the Super Hornet, and the F-15E, both of these aircraft would struggle to combat the next generation fighters that China could acquire due to range and maneuverability, and the fighter drones are still a long way off. Not to mention the Russians continue to pump out effective aircraft at half the cost of US replacements leaving an aging air force at risk. Hence, these issues are why both the Marines and the Air Force should have considered the Super Tomcat 21, even in just a few sqadrons for reserve purposes. The range of this air craft superceded all the others because of an engineering revolution that even the Air Force has forgotten about since the retirement of the F-111. The revolution was to have an aircraft that could help cheat the Mach triangle. Enter the development of the delta wing which could slow air down over the wing as it passes and creates less turbulence that the engines have to push through. What also, assisted the F-111 and the Tomcat was that when the wings were swept the aspect ratio was reduced to allow less drag to slow the plane down from the trailing edge. This is the main problem that cotinues to plague the range of aircraft today for the US such as the F-16 and F-18 requiring them to have engines over compensate for the fact that the wings are still outside the Mach triangle creating more drag off the wings. The F-15 and most of the Russian fighters that came after the Mig 21 demonstrates this fact. Because the trailing edge is swept on these planes, the delta wing style pulls the wings closer inside the Mach triangle, but at the same time provide better turning because of the lower aspect ratio. This allows for subsonic are to travel over the wings even while the plane is supersonic which allows for easy cruising at Mach speed(less gas). The wings being out for Tomcat allowed for better turns at lower speeds which is what was learned from the F-4, F-106, and F-102 that had problems turning at low speeds. The conclusion of my statement is that Russia has now been able to create 4 new fighters that possibly only the Tomcat could dogfight without refueling from a carrier, and the Air Force still can’t get bases close enough to use the F-15 or F-22 to maxmize their range even with air-to-air refueling, and the F-15 is getting old. In addition, when looking at long range weapons capability, the Pheonix missile still reigns supreme. I believe there’s a reason why we don’t get to see Hollywood movies where the F-18 Super Hornet goes head to head with the SU-37, because even the Navy knows that would look bad. A thrust vectoring Super Tomcat would probably stand a better chance, because even the F-22 can’t go in some directions that plane can. The Navy messed up here. Oh, by the way the Delta Dart couldn’t turn very well in dogfights, because it needed horizontal stabilizers, like the F-21 Kfir has now.

Hi everybody i’ve read the many of the comments , i don’t know , everyone has his/her own opinion , but there is a fact that many would not accept , that is the F-22 is the only fifth generation fighter in the planet , it is designed and built primarily as an air superiority fighter which means a lot , the other plane ( i admire them all ) are just forth generation fighters although specialists call them 4.5 generation or 4xx gen. , but they still forth gen. that mean there is no way to compare or to match the Raptor with any of the 3 remaining fighter , adding to this is that despite the F 35 is also planed to carry fifth generation fighter technology it still inferior to the Raptor according to its designers and builders ( Lockheed Martin ) , i don’t want to make it dark to you , but the only hopeful match for the Raptor is the upcoming Russian su T50 or sometimes called SU-PAK FA , sorry typhoon enthusiasts tell now the EU didn’t launched a fighter program that can match the RAPTOR , N.B. i was polite with my comment so i hope the responses will be polite too .

my dear “The Captain” PAK FA an T50 are completely diffren program. PAK FA is developed by sukhoi and T50 by MIG and also called MIG1.44,they would be out in mid or ending of next decade.it is said that PAK FA has ols-35 which can get lock on raptor at 50km head on.

Dear friends , i would like you to know that the mig 1.44 was just a projected next generation fighter that did not get approved at all together with its fellow su 47 project , both of which did not even entered the development phase , but instead some of the technologies suggested in both those aircraft are supposed to be involved in the upcoming russian fifth generation fighter . And regarding the PAK SA and T50 issue , as i read and heared there is no differnce , but there would be a version for both the russian and indian airforces , and another version for the Russian airforce only that would not be sold to or shared with any others to preserve an air superiority for the Russian AF , but still there is only one russian fifth gen. fighter project . Correct me please if i am wrong .

Yes, the F-22 beat the F-15 when outnumbered 5 to 1 but what of it? You think that the USAF would actually let the F-15 win? If that happened, they’d be the laughingstock of the world! No, politics were at play here as I don’t believe for a second that the F-22 is more than 5x better than the might F-15 Eagle, not by a long shot. There is another thing to consider. The F-22 loses its stealth as soon as it opens its missile bay doors because there will be sudden buffeting from wind and that will show up on ANY radar! Let’s take an older plane like a MiG-25 Foxbat. The Raptor sneaks up on it and opens its bay doors. The Foxbat sees this immediately and jumps to Mach 3.2, leaving the Raptor in the dust. The Raptor fires its missile but because the Foxbat is moving so fast, the missile runs out of fuel before it can reach its target. The Raptor has just given away its position and it will now be tracked. The key to stealth is not that the Raptor is invisible to radar, the key is that it looks far smaller than it actually is, roughly the size of a Canada Goose. If it flies slowly enough, a radar will think it’s a Cessna or Beechcraft and ignore it. Once it’s been identified however, that signature will be tracked like any other and its stealth properties are useless. Dogfight capabilities are a matter of maneuverability and the Raptor just doesn’t have what the Su-37 has. The USA proved this with the Eagle. The Eagle was originally designed to fight the Foxbat, a plane that NATO assumed had tremendous maneuverability properties. They assumed wrong. The Foxbat is an all-weather, long-range interceptor and flies extremely fast in a straight line with an unparalleled rate of climb and a service ceiling of 80,000 feet. Against a dogfighter, the Foxbat stands little chance because it can’t turn fast enough to keep its enemy out of it’s 6 o’clock and therefore cannot fire but can be fired upon. As a result, the Foxbat has to flee and come back making extreme high speed straight pass strikes. The interceptor high-speed pass is uber-deadly if the interceptor gets the chance to use it but because they turn like bricks, it usually won’t. This proves that once the Raptor is detected and its stealth wildcard revoked, it has no chance in a dogfight with the SU-37 for the same reason that the Foxbat could never match the Eagle. It will never be able to get the Su-37 out of it’s 6 o’clock position and will therefore never be able to fire upon it. Planes almost NEVER shoot a missle at each other at point-blank range for two reasons. 1) If the enemy aircraft is coming straight at you and you launch a missile, all the enemy has to do is change direction and the missile will not hit. 2) If the missile does hit, the explosion will probably knock you out of the sky because you’ll be too close. That’s why they have Vulcan guns. So, what will happen is that the Terminator will be scrambled and will engage the Raptor at point-blank range. Neither plane will fire anything except guns. Guns rarely shoot a plane down immediately so after doing minor damage to each other, they will pass each other and begin the dogfight looping. The better turn rate of the Terminator and ability to fly slower without stalling will put it behind the Raptor and its superior payload will take the Raptor down. It won’t ALWAYS happen that way of course, but this just proves that the 5 on 1 Eagle vs. Raptor test was BS. Remember, in the US, the Generals would lie to look like geniuses rather than tell the truth and really help defend their country.

for starters the eurofighter video isnt from an air show so the pilot isnt even really showing off, it didnt even do its party trick (sitting back virtually stationary on its engines, amazing) i just dont get how americans all ways manage to (weather its a car or like this a plane) put such a huge engine into something and get such a small amount of power and top speed out of it. guess its just the superior engineering from the uk and europe, which has always been the case since engineering started, in fact the very person that invented the jet engine came from my home city. the eurofighters top speed is better than the raptors even with half the power, just like us getting 500bhp out of a 2L engine car when u can only just about get 600bhp out of a dodge viper 8.2L engine. Anyway i think u will find a higher top speed, better agility, longer flight distance, higher weight carrying capability and not to mention it is currently the most technologically advanced fighter plane in the world. Not finished there either,General John P. Jumper of the us air force has flew both the raptor and the typhoon and afterwards praised the typhoon saying it was the best plane he has used. During the exercise “Typhoon Meet” held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) WITHOUT SUFFERING LOSSES. dont get me wrong, the raptor is great at stealth and so on but when u compare two fighter jets it has to be on a level playing field i.e. the good old dog fight. it isnt a match. there has even been reports of this dog fight taking place with the typhoon coming out on top. but to be fair that could be just the fact the Royal Air Force has the Best trained pilots on the planet. Or it could have just been down to friendly fire from the US jokers. any thing ive missed? o yeah…….the small problem that was reported that the raptor can only just about manage a few hours in the air and then needs to have major works carried out on it just to get it back running again. peace out, i love it.

USP 7°part Eurofighter Typhoon ENG…………….please watch this clip on youtube. it explains a lot, that we as non pilots or aviation experts dont understand. like the fact that the euro fighter is so agile and quick that it doesnt need to be stealth or the fact that it has the best pilot aides in a plane ever that helps the pilot not have to worry about anything but the dog fight i.e. altitude, fuel, etc. the eurofighter IS the most ADVANCED plane ever made, it has a completely re designed G suit that allows pilots to sustain 9G manoeuvres unlike any other plane out there. it can turn just as agile at sub sonic speeds as it can at mach 1.8. this plane is a masterpiece. U just have to searh and listen to pilots that have used it to realise. its not all about show and what one plane has that another doesnt i.e. stealth. its more indepth and scientific than we can ever imagine. everyone on here talks about the russian and the US plane, its all about the typhoon,,,,,come on 8 typhoons versus 27 F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s and the typhoon without a single loss. please watch the video and stop being so proud, the raptor is amazing but just cos its american doesnt mean its best.

just looking back through the comments and all the raptor fans are deluded. it looks like they havent even looked at any of the specs of the euro fighter. stop banging on about speed………..EUROFIGHTER IS FASTER…….stop banging on about supercruise……..EUROFIGHTER DOES THIS TOO……………THE ONLY ONE ASPECT THAT THE RAPTOR HAS OVER THE TYPHOON IS STEALTH AND IF YOU HAVE WATCHED THE VID FROM ABOVE YOU WILL KNOW THAT THE EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON DOES NOT NEED THIS. The new G suit which lets the pilot keep doing 9G MANOEUVRES TIME AND TIME AGIN UNLIKE ANY OTHER FIGHTER, is enough alone to cancel out that one advantage the raptor has. and as for the russians there just a joe trying to keep up, basically a third world country.

Everyone should keep in mind the Russians will show all the ability of there jet fighters because,they are for sale to anyone and are so much cheaper than a F22. They will beat just about everything out there. The Indians flew there SU 30MK against the f-15 and found out that thrust vectoring in aircraft has some deadly flaws in low altitude fight. though the SU 30 had more Kills, the F15 more than held it’s own. The Indian pilots are very good only the Russians are better with there jet Fighters. AS for the F22, the Americans will never allow there pilots to show full capabilities of the F22 or will they ever sale the top of line model to any one, they will get a lower end model. The Russians will sale you the top of the line model if you want it. As I said thrust vectoring has some deadly flaws, the article talked about a give away to the fighter from behind. The American F15 fighters are training with the new maneuvers. the problem is not as prevalent in the F22 but it is still there. The US and Indian air force’s have been training since 2004 and the Indians showed the flaws of the F15 in air to air combat in 2004 to the point that everybody was amazed by the Indian pilots. Most recent exercises have the F15 doing better But not enough to feel comfortable. Also Indian pilots are becoming the most requested trainers for the SU 30’s they are that good. Training is everything!!! Great pilots always get better when they train with other great pilots. The article that came out was only out for a short time, can not find it any longer. read more watch less!!!

I am brazilian, and for me, the Raptor is the best without any doubt . The Raptor it’s better, and we know this . The cost of the Raptor is much larger than anyone other plane fighter you can imagine ( 350 million dollars ),not to mention that, he is a stealth aircraft, missiles with 98% chance of hitting the enemy, and other technologies that make it the best plane fighter of all time.

The su-37 beats the F22 in speed and maneuverability.Just to prove it watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM&feature=related
Watch the whole thing the best is at the end.The 2 planes are really close to speed and maneuverability but su-37 is superior in those aspects.Here is an F22 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhCqNIL6MOU
I really dont know which one is the best.They are both really good.The thing i know ,however is that the Eurofighter is nothing compared to those two.

Its amusing to read all of this international aviation masturbation. All of you Su and Eurofighter fans remind me of teenage, pimplefaced virgins. The simple fact is that ever since the F-14,F-15,F-16 and F-18 entered service they own the skies. The kill ratios prove it. The F-22 will almost certainly continue that tradition. Ask any pilot whos ever engaged these aircraft in air to air combat - oh wait, you cant - theyre all dead! Nuff said.

ED……..(Egotistical Dick). Search on youtube for an english programme called “JAMES MAY’s 20th century”(eurofighter). It shows a pilot saying he has been to combat in all those planes and he would rather go into combat with the typhoon every time. Home sick angel……thats what he calls it.
actually here you go, i know how lazy u americas are..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACuAIuNIj6w&feature=related

“All combatants are equippted with ground breaking technology’s”. That being said, as a civillian you will not be able to view the true abilities of these aircraft. (At least not the DARPA / Lockheed production) All are capable, non are comparable that is to the f-22.

Well first i think that Su 37 pilot was better than F22 pilot anyway Su 37 its a great fighter
but that means shit when the 37 gets destroyed from Raptor when he didnt even know that Raptor was the (Stealth Ability) anyway not only for the stealth technology but at all aspects F22 is the best

Allen your an Idiot. Those two videos don’t prove anything about the speed of the two fighters simply because THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT VIDEOS. If you wanted to prove which one was faster or more maneuverable you should have found a video that has them both racing each other which I doubt exists. In addition when it comes to maneuverability both fighters are excellent and we won’t really know which one is better till they have been in a dogfight

You say the Eurofigher Typhoon is the best fighter jet out of the three however you don’t stop to think that if this is true why would all the European countries that have participated in the Eurofighter program also be working on the F-35 program? At the same time many countries that are part of the F-35 project have expressed a wish to buy the F-22 if they could since it is obvious that the F-35 will not be as good as the Raptor. If anyone argues this look at the facts. The F-22 has a restriction on foreign sales and the F-35 isn’t. If the F-35 was on par with the F-22 then their would be no reason to stop foreign sales of the Raptor. With this in mind the Eurofighter is now just getting to the level of the F-15 an airplane many decades its senior while the F-22 is meant to replace the Eagle as the USAF main air dominance fighter. These are just the facts I in fact think the Eurofigher is an Awesome fighter jet but in my opinion it is not on par with the F-22 and the Europeans know it since they are working on the F-35 to simply get a glimpse of the technology that makes up the F-22 Raptor.

I am very disappointed in you again. In an earlier post you said the Eurofigher Typhoon is faster than the F-22. You are sadly mistaken. According to BAE’s website (the main contributor of to the Eurofigher project) the top speed is Mach 2. The F-22 top speed is the same if not more. At the moment the true statistics about the F-22’s top speed are top secret but it has been seen going Mach 2 with a Mach 1.5 super cruise. So if anything the two jets are tied for speed, and don’t even say that this a gov’t ploy to hide a slower top speed just look at the Sr-71 Black Bird (The fastest manned airplane in history) whose top speed was hidden for decades (and may still be). You say the Eurofighter is more maneuverable but again you have no proof only stating that it can almost stop in mid air. Again the F-22 has been seen doing the same thing countless times and if you have any objection to this fact simply go onto Youtube. You say the Eurofigher does not need stealth because it is supposedly the most maneuverable fighter jet ever produced. However all that maneuverability does not come in handy when you have a missile blowing up behind the back of your jet because you never saw the Raptor coming. You bring up the G suit which allows the Euro Fighter to do 9 G turns. That has nothing to do with the blog. The same G suit can be bought for the F-22 and you will lose that advantage. Finally you bring up the test between the Eurofighter Typhoon and all the advanced 4th generation fighters combined and the Eurofigher coming out the victor. Well sorry to disappoint your but the F-22 had the same test with a very similar out come. When you put this all together the Eurofigher really doesn’t have any advantages over the F-22 while the F-22 has the enormous of Stealth. As put by a British fighter pilot
“I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing,” said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”

if you want to read the rest of the story: http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831 and just so you can check the stats on your beloved Eurofigher here is BAE’s website http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_106920114440.html. Again this is all data and the true champion cannot be chosen until their is a real show down between the two. And on a final not you say you have to judge them equally by having a dog fight. Well sorry to disappoint you war isn’t about equality its about who has the better tools and the better trained crew. I won’t say that the USAF fighter pilots are the best in the world but I will tell you one thing they are sure up their.

fwenshy
Aug 11th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“ED……..(Egotistical Dick). Search on youtube for an english programme called “JAMES MAY’s 20th century”(eurofighter). It shows a pilot saying he has been to combat in all those planes and he would rather go into combat with the typhoon every time. Home sick angel……thats what he calls it.
actually here you go, i know how lazy u americas are..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACuAIuNIj6w&feature=related”

You are a fucking Idiot. This vid says he flew in a Harrier and an F-16 both of which are decades older than the Eurofighter and F-22. Of course he would rather fly in the Eurofighter than those older jets with OLDER technologies. Finally do you own research before complaining retard

I love reading all the posts in a forum for a while before I reply. Actually, it is quite interesting. Because it seems that there are a lot of emotional appeals on both sides and it quickly devolves into “I am better than you” nonsense. First of all, each of these airplanes is magnificent in its own right.

Well, I will give my opinion though I am no expert and I could still be wrong. Fortunately, at least its based on observation and not on nationalism or emotional appeals. First and foremost at Beyond visual range and in avoiding detection (for a time) the raptor will win from a distance (for a while). However, if Raptors are outnumber 3 or 4 to 1 and even if if they manage to knock down 3/4 of those enemy fighters then there is always a chance a few will be able to fly close in and engage in a dogfight. I know that the raptor is still competent in this environment. But at very close range firing guns (not missiles) I think that the raptor would be in trouble versus any of these other fighters. And firing a gun through a sight is not always required to have a radar lock etc like a missile at which point the stealth isn’t going to save you.

So, in summary, I admit I could still be wrong. I am no expert in this. I do believe that the BVR capability of the f22 and f35 are amazing and for a time will win even while out numbered. But if even a few of the enemy can get close enough to engage in a turning fight I feel that the tables will turn and the enemy has at least an equal chance of taking down a raptor (and it is probable that the odds are better than that).

It is very easy to be very excited and angry based on national feelings. I am an American and though sometimes proud of our country I am not silly enough or nationalistic enough to think that we are “better than everyone else”. In fact, I find such attitudes disgusting. I believe in supporting our nation but not acting stupidly and arrogantly which is a reputation that some Americans earn for us. Every nation and every air force should be respected. All of these planes are great in their own right. (of course some of the posts may be from Xbox Preteen excitable children which would explain some of the posts as well)

I read your comment and I agree that its is stupid to pick which plane is better based on nationalism. However I find one problem with your argument and many other posts before it. Many people, including yourself, keep saying that the F-22 cannot compare to the two other jets in a turning dogfight. I believe this is untrue in fact there is evidence that the F-22 is at least as maneuverable as the Su-30. The evidence being the aerial maneuver known as pugachev’s cobra which is the main reason everyone says the Su-30 is so maneuverable. The F-22 can do the exact same move and many more that the Su-30 is not able to do. This is due to the F-22’s Thrust Vectoring engines that gives it immense maneuverability which, I would say gives it abilities much higher than that of the outdated Su-30 and at least on par with the Eurofighter(I cannot say for sure because I have not seen that many videos showing off the super maneuverability that the Eurofighter supposedly has). Just to clarify I think your argument is viable but I also believe that you and many others down play the true maneuverability of the F-22 which has proven countless times to be one of the most maneuverable jets ever built.

F-22 can far outdo the Russian fighter in any performance area. The F-22 can maneuver at zero airspeed (which the SU-30 cannot do — all the SU-30 can do is the “cobra maneuver”, which the F-22 can also do easily); the F-22 can also out turn the SU-30 under any conditions, out accelerate the SU-30 under any conditions, outrun the SU-30 in mil power, and on top of all that the F-22 has much better air to air armament than the SU-30, and still more on top of that, the F-22 is stealthy, while the SU-30 has the radar signature of a large barn door. Add to those facts the additional fact that the radar, infrared and other “situational awareness” sensors aboard the F-22 are much, much better than those in the SU-30, and even the greatest advocate for the SU-30 would conclude that the SU-30 would be a sitting duck and a dead duck in any engagement that it may be unfortunate enough to encounter with the F-22.

Short recap: The SU-30 is a great airshow machine; but, regarding the statement that the SU-30 is “the best fighter in the world”, it definitely ain’t!! Not by a country mile!!!

Having said that, the SU-30 has better aerodynamic characteristics than our current first line fighter, the F-15, which is why the AF wants more F-22s. A force of F-15s going up against a comparable force of SU-30s would probably come out on top — but only because of better pilot training, better tactics and better missiles — not because it could match the SU-30 in a turning “dog fight” which our tactics dating back several decades have told us to avoid. Our F-15 and F-16 air-to-air tactics are now (and have been for many years) to approach an enemy force of fighters at high mach, fire BVR* missiles, blow through the enemy force and only reluctantly get into a “fur ball” (the modern term for “dog fight”). Our short range missile (the Sidewinder) is a better killer than its Russian counterpart since it has much better off-boresight capability.

F-22 tactics, as demonstrated in many exercise engagements are much the same as described above. Those tactics, which still work well, plus the stealthiness, speed, incredible radar performance and the best air-to-air missiles in the world have made the F-22 a 100 to one winner in all exercise engagements to date. That statement is a document fact. Also, if the F-22 did get into a turning engagement with the SU-30, there is no doubt in my mind as to which fighter would win — the F-22 by very long odds.

yes! I read this all, it was a long but amazing trip. My opinion is simple. If Raptor constructed to shot a flanker it MUST do it. At the same way if Flanker constructed to shot all other and it MUST do it (typhoon, sorry). Raptor is exclusively american toy, and probably Flanker(at least mki and 35) and Raptor not a competitors in battle or trade (may be in some case even allies And top secret news - famous and legendary (on this thread) aircraft Su37 project closed. Wow! We are won 2-1 (2 builded- 1 crashed) Awaiting T50! God bless all of tolerant people Sorry for many bugs in my text, i’m only some russian guy with a poor english. PS Who is better f22 or su37? answer - S400! God bless PVO (SAM)!

The aircraft is often irrelevant. Its a weapons platform only. The weapons and the aircrafts ability to deliver them, fast and accurate, is what counts. Load a Eurofighter with crap AA missiles and poor radar technology and pit it against something older such as a buccaneer with the most modern missiles and radar and the buccaneer will win.

Congratulations to the US for building the only real new aircraft and not tossing forward canards on a 1970s airframe or mirage upgrade. I applaud innovation and new design even if it stems from previous achievments, but the Raptor has a significant advantage in stealth approach.

Additionally if you watch the manouvers performed by the SU- the raptor does have moves to get nose-on and shoot. The F-22 faces the SU in exercises in Asia and we dont have to watch video and compare, the real life outcome of this duel is that the Raptor sprays lead through the SU when it goes into what I call a controlled stall. Once you lose speed-these stall manouvers place you in a very low airspeed situation that is a severe disadvantage.

Not to be completely ignored, Euro-fighter, outflown by the SU obviously and should certainly hide from Raptor at all cost. European countries should buy SU variants if they cant get US technology.

There is no winner, because you cannot compare the planes in question.

Long range scenario, yes the F-22 Raptor would probably win, but have you ever tried shooting something travelling at Mach 1.5? As soon as you get in close to a Eurofighter Typhoon, (or an Su-37 for that matter), the F-22 is caput.

Alot of the people posting here have no idea what they’re posting about.

It is impossible to compare the planes, because they were built for different reasons, and in the area covered by the reason they were built, they would win!

It is also a well known fact that the United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, “I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter.”

Yet he would be flying them in a DogFight situation.

If you know anything about the Aircraft in question, you’ll agree with me. It is impossible to choose a winner!

i still like the f-15 and the f-22 but i also like the mig 29 it seems like everytime the russians make a sweet jet china finds a way to rip it off somehow and sell it and what do the russians get for all their hard work some other country selling cheap knock offs of all their hard work thats just my 2 cents

I don’t think that there is a best aircraft among thses ones. The Sukhoi-37, great manueverbility and the ideal aircraft for aerobactics purposes. The F-22 and Eurofighter are more of the war-machines than the Terminator. In terms of manueverbility, I definetly say the Terminator. In terms of combat, I’d say between either the Eurofighter or the Raptor, probably the Raptor.

Aerobatic ability is only one aspect of a war plane’s effectiveness. Stealthiness, weapons mix,the radar and fire control systems are equally important, if not more important. The expression “First sight, first kill” speaks loudly to the new space-based warfare. The dog fight days are gone, except in Hollywood.

The Super Hornet is actually the best. It won more than 50% of simulated fight scenarios conducted against the F-22. It comes down to the radar capabilities and the Raptor could be picked up by it no problem. The raptor is such a piece of crap that they stopped making them after only making 50. It’s getting replaced by another aircraft already.

Russian air to air missiles are better but since Canada cant buy russian planes or the f22 I’d take the NEW F15 Silent Eagle, cheaper than the crap single engine f35 (have fun on patrol in the arctic) and is almost twice as fast with a huge advantage with payload ( 10000LBS) and range. And the OLD EAGLE has a 100 to 0 kill ratio, This one is even better.

The Eurofighter in opinion & fact, is the better, as it compromises between the two ends of the spectrum posted by the other two named fighters. It balances the agility of a Sukhoi with the stealth capacity of the Raptor, while effectively harnessing weapon payload with out having to worry much about compromise in flight performance.

The Raptor has almost no radar signiture, making it a key candidate for penetrable missions. However, if caught… can be missile locked considerably too easily.

The Sukhoi has a clear radar signiture, making it considerably too easy to be seen… but not easily missile locked, due to it’s superior performance based flight design.

The Eurofighter boasts low key radar signiture, and impressive agility, with damaging weapons payload aimed air to air & air to ground. And it makes sense that we made it that way, after all we do have to ’sit’ inbetween the two ex superpowers. This might make you consider that maybe the defence ministers of Europe thought that they should just make a fighter that gives boths sides… a run for they’re missiles. Thus making us ’sit’ quite comfortably indeed.

“Three Fighters… all impressive. Two Fighters… declare weaknesses. One Fighter… is left.”

The Typhoon is the more formidable opponent as its pilots are blooded and battle experienced. The other two have just been playing exercises and games. The RAF pilot is far better trained and experienced than his Yank and Ivan colleagues.

Who taught the Yanks how to fly Harriers and Corsairs and put a decent engine in the Mustang? The British, that is who. In 1940 and 1982 the RAF proved that they excel in a target rich environment.

I served in the USAF, I know about aerial combat. A single F-22 Raptor defeated 5 F-15 eagles in air to air combat. 4 were dead before they knew what was happening,(no warning.) The fifth had about a two second warning before it was killed. The F-22 cannot be defeated by any Russian or European fighter. It’s role is extremely limited, (not a multi-role fighter) but, for what it does, air to air it has no equal.

The Scotsman article referenced above is far less impressive when you realize the Typhoon defeated 2 Strike Eagle multi-role aircraft. These jets are primarily used in an air to ground role and not air to air. I would EXPECT a delta-winged air to air fighter to kill 2 F-15Es laden down with drop tanks and 8,000lbs of JDAMs and LGBs. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t put much faith in RAF aircrew.http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Eurofighter-a-shooting-star-in.2636433.jp

Clearly, from a long range air superiority standpoint, the F-22 probably trumps all comers due to it’s stealth technology. BUT, (and it’s a big but) how many F-22s could the US put into the sky TODAY if they were called for? Answer: NONE! Every single stealth fighter in the US military is grounded for some major issue or other. And the NEXT generation of stealth fighters in our arsonal are having issues and major cost overruns as well. The Russians and Chinese don’t seem to have any problems putting their SU-3X planes in the sky, nor have I heard about any problems with the Eurofighter. So, the very BEST plane in the world (from a technical aspect) is worthless if you can’t get it off the ground.

I am wondering why SU-37 was even brought into the comparison. It is not a production line Jet and is more of a technology demonstrator. Rather the comparison should be between F-22 Raptor, EF Typhoon and Su-30MKI/SU-35BM (both are much more advanced than the basic SU-30). If it were up to me, I would not bring F-22 into this comparison at all and would save it for the Sukhoi PAK FA (both are 5th generation) when it is fully developed. As for the F-35 JSF, I think its totally over-rated but thats another story.

When you have to field fighter jets in any combat scenario, unit cost of an airplane, rate of production, mean time between combat missions also plays a deciding factor in the role it plays especially if it needs to be fielded by the numbers.

The unit costs are as follows:

F-22: US$150M
EF Typhoon: US$130M
SU-35BM: US$45 to $65M

Now consider a Vietnam war type scenario….

Clearly the US will not want to to deploy the F-22 in large numbers and will only limit it to strategic roles. In other words, it will not be able to dominate the air space since the sheer number of Sukhois will over power whatever squadron of F-22 is deployed. The cost of one f-22 raptor is comparable to 2-3 su-35. Thus the loss one one raptor would hurt the US more than the loss of 2 su-35 would hurt the Russians. Also note that Su-30/Su-35 variants are not only used by Russians themselves but also their allies, while the Raptor is not for export even to allied nations. Thus when it comes to a numbers comparison, you do the math! Also the maintenance costs of the raptor are extremely high. In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.

Typhoons on the other hand would fare much better against the sukhois. Although it is costlier than the Sukhois, it is cheaper than the Raptor, maintenance costs are lower and production lines can move much faster since its is a joint program (EADS) and cost and production are shared by multiple countries. The F-22, while an exceptional bit of machine, is not completely invulnerable. Active stealth increases your chances of survival but does not make you completely invisible from radars. Thus we can safely assume that in a typical scenario, the F-22s will suffer combat losses even if in lower numbers. Also note, the F-22 production line has been stopped at 187 whereas production of the EF typhoon and su-30/35 is very much ongoing. Thus eventually, the F-22 would have to be pulled out from the primary theater of operations and the US would have to deploy the f-15s, f-16s and f-18s to maintain air supremacy. Now that would really level out the playing field and provide real fodder for a hot debate. Just imagine, the latest versions of f-15/f-16/f-18 vs su-27/mig-29/su30!! All exceptional in their own way!!

Now if we leave numbers out of the equation, the Raptor would probably emerge winner in BVR engagement due to its stealth aspect. Although it won’t be long before it is detected by the radars of the EF and Su-35s (both have exceptionally powerful radars), the stealth aspect would provide the raptor an opportunity to close in for the “first look-first shot”. For this to happen effectively, the raptors would need to rely heavily on AEW&Cs. However, it is likely that the Sukhois would have AEW&C killers on board like the Novator KS-172. Another huge detrimental factor is the presence of powerful IRST sensors on both the typhoon as well as su-30/35s while the raptors are not equipped with IRST sensors. Stealth (although it can reduce the signature) does not provide much cover against IRST sensors and even if you are on supercruise, IRST would detect the infra-red signature of your engine exhausts, get in close enough and launch a missile. Also, the top speed of a raptor is not even close to the likes of the SR-71 blackbird or Mig 25 Foxbat that it would outrun its opponents in a WVR scenario.

Thus to conclude, I feel that the Raptor is an exceptional warbird but it think its been hyped too much. I would rather prefer to follow a close combat scenario between the typhoon and su-35 OR a Raptor vs PAK FA comparison.

EUROFIGHTER OF COURSE F 22 CANT FOLLOW IT AND THEYRE ROCKETS CANT FOLLOW EUROFIGHTER IF F 22 DOES ONE OF EUROFIGHTER MOVEMENT IT WILL LOSE CONTROLE AND CRASH HIS STEALTHY FORM DONT LET HIM TO HAVE A GOOD MANEUVERMENT CAPABILITY.F 22 IS A 150 MILION $ FAILURE

The recent statement by a United States Department of Defence official, that the US would be willing to discuss a possible sale of the F-35 Lightning II to India, or even consider bringing India into the ambitious programme as a partner, has generated a lot of attention in
the Indian media. While this is not the first time the F-35 has been offered to India, the timing of this fresh pitch is interesting. Coming six months after the two American contenders vying for the lucrative Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract — the F-16 and F/A-18 — failed to make the Indian Air Force (IAF) shortlist, and just days before the bids by EADS Cassidian and Dassault were opened, many perceive this as an attempt by the US and Lockheed-Martin to work themselves back into the equation. Sections of the Indian news media – both print and electronic – have called for the F-35’s consideration in the MMRCA tender itself (and some have called for an outright purchase) resulting in a new round of teeth-gnashing over a topic that has stretched over a decade. All things considered, here’s why we don’t think the F-35 for India is a very good idea.

To be clear, there is no doubt that the F-35 will meet accuracy and modernity standards required from any new-generation military equipment. But does it provide true bang-for-buck that the Indian Air Force needs? The way we see it, not really.

The Lightning II can barely be called a “medium weight” aircraft – the only aircraft heavier than it in the MMRCA competition was the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Now couple this with the fact that its payload just about matches that of the Tejas, and you start to wonder whether it’s such a good fit for the IAF. Next, even if it is advertised as a “multirole” aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability. Also, its stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22’s, and so it cannot be relied upon to make its way in and out of enemy territory unassisted.

Additionally, the F-35 features a significantly smaller combat radius than either MMRCA finalist when on internal fuel and weapons (which also means a smaller payload due to restrictions on space available). There is no official mention yet about external fuel tanks on the F-35, and the moment you hang weapons on external pylons, you can kiss both range and stealth goodbye. There are doubts, too, about its aerodynamic capabilities. The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.

There is also an issue that seems minor at first sight, but could throw a spanner in procurement. The IAF has, over the last two decades, gravitated towards two-man crews for any aircraft that will be involved in strike roles beyond close air support. This was highlighted in the Kargil War when IAF Mirages had to perform precision bombing tasks at high altitude while avoiding air defences, staying within the border and keeping an eye on possible interception. It is the reason why a third of the MMRCA batch is touted to comprise tandem-seaters just as all the new Jaguars have been. The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.

Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22’s radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure. Even six years after it entered service, new and potentially fatal problems continue to surface with alarming regularity. It isn’t too hard to guess how the F-35, whose design borrows heavily from that of the F-22 and even outclasses it in certain aspects, will fare in this regard.

If that wasn’t bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won’t be for a decade. Going by past experience, further schedule slippages and cost overruns look like a distinct possibility. Now, factor in the additional uncertainty created by the possible need to develop a tandem-seat version for the IAF alone, and one quickly begins to see why any optimism regarding timelines and costs could be highly misplaced. In the midst of all these arguments and calculations, the main reason why new medium fighters are being bought is often forgotten: the IAF needs new aircraft as fast as possible to shore up numbers and make up for the rapid obsolescence of a large portion of its fleet, and each delay only serves to make an already precarious situation worse. It is already taking a significant risk with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as it is. What is the point of bringing more uncertainty into the equation now, that too to procure a fighter that offers little in addition to low-observability?

And speaking of low-observability, how much will it cost to maintain the stealth features, especially in the hazy, dusty conditions of India? For that matter, will the IAF even get an aircraft that is as stealthy as the ones the US and UK operate? Will it get all the avionics, even watered down versions? The US is reluctant today to provide the UK, the only level-1 partner in the project, with full access to the aircraft’s source code. What are the chances of India getting a better deal?

Finally, there is one additional issue that bears examination in this debate, and that is how procuring the F-35 will affect the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project. Because of the similar roles the two aircraft shall be expected to fulfil, there is a distinct possibility that purchasing the F-35 will kill the AMCA for good, with disastrous long-term consequences. Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.

Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence.

And yet, the reason this may turn out to be a bad idea is that in the same way the MiG-25 was replaced not by another aircraft but an indirect replacement – spy satellites – the F-35’s role can be performed not by another aircraft, but by missiles. We already operate the ground-launched BrahMos. The air-launched version should be available within the next few years, giving us a 300-km reach anywhere beyond its launch point. Throw the Shaurya into the mix and suddenly we can hit targets deep inside enemy territory without having to risk aircraft or pilots. Granted, missiles cannot do everything an aircraft can but even if cruise missiles provide partial coverage, the costs in maintaining a squadron’s worth of special aircraft and pilots cannot be justified.

This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.

SU-37 can’t be the best because it doesn’t even exist, Raptor is a pain in the ass in maintenance with 20 hours of service for 1 hout of flight, Eurofighter typhoon has it’s maneuverability but there’s a problem whit’s spare parts, atleast in UK, and it costs only 5-25 mln usd cheaper than f22, su-30/su-35 are not so modern, but they cost 2 to 5 times cheaper than F22/typhoon…
I just hope we won’t have a chance to see whish one is really better

I thing that you cant compare the planes on this video , because you dont need maneuvers like a cobra in a dogfight!!!!
All they say the su is the best plane,because her maneuvers are so spezial are wrong!
When I must take a plane dogfight i would take the f22 or the ef !!
They have the best technology and They have the best weight push affair !
Sorry My english is not to good .

I agree with you there. The F-35 does not fit into the role of maintaining air supremacy in the sub continent and I am quite sure that the IAF will not consider it although the Indian Navy might, due to its VTOL/STOL capabilities. The navy has already sent a RFP to Lockheed and the F-35 could be an able replacement for the Navy’s ageing fleet of sea-harriers.

But leaving the maintenance issues and costs aside, the lightning is seriously under powered with a max speed of Mach 1.6 whereas the older Mig - 21s are faster than that with speeds of over Mach 2. While one might argue that a strike fighter need not be very fast, the lightning is labelled as a true multi-role fighter which means that the F-35 should also be able to undertake air to air missions as well. This is where I fail to see the utility of the F-35. Although it has a aesa radar on board which makes it useful in the BVR scenario, you would need to have an aircraft which is agile and fast even at high Angles of Attack to win in any WVR scenario which clearly the F-35 is not.

So in summation, it is stealthy by not as stealthy as the F-22. It has a decent radar but low on Payload. It has suitable carrier capabilities but is under powered.

All in all, I think India should overlook the F-35 and focus on the FGFA program which looks more practical and tailormade for the Indian combat scenario and besides, the Americans would never provide total ToT like the Russians do.

@Dogfight 100: Cobra maneuvers can actually be very useful in close dogfights if executed properly. It allows the pursued jet to dump speed quickly and shake of the jet behind you with a high chance of the pursuant overshooting you. Then you get down to level flight, go to guns and take him out or you switch to heat seeking short range missiles like the sidewinders, pythons or archers and blow him to kingdom come.

Out of the above examples, the Su-37 is the most agile and maeuverable jet (I am not saying it is the best) since it has the inherrent agility of the Su-27 family combined with full 3D TVC while the Raptor has 2D TVC. The Su-37 is a technology demonstrator and was used as a testbed for Engines, avionics, radar etc for the PAK-FA program.

Last year i have skoken with a German ef pilot !
He said that all maneuvers in a display like an COBRA not usefull be in a dogfigt!
An other ef pilot had the chance to fly with su-35!
After the flight he said that the du is a very good fighter but the ef is difently better.
And when you make a cobra you are to slow . The other plane can make a loop or sth. Other
And shot the enemy down ( because you are to slow !
A report over the 3 planes have made a man he looks to the planes and said that the ef is 8 Times better then su-35!
The f22 is defently the best plane and is 10 Times better then the su
To you neil

It is inconceivable to me that anyone could suggest that any of these so called fighters are even in same league as the f-22 much less best it in capability. This is akin to saying a 60s era muscle car is superior to a modern sports car because they have more torque. These planes all look like old technology compared to the f22 which by the way is designed for multiple roles, it is not JUST a fighter. I can tell you how a fight between the f22 and any of these others would end. The f22 would detect the other plane on its state of the art radar systems, lock on a missile and fire it with the other plane not even being aware of the f22s presence. It would be more like hunting excursion for the f22, as opposed to a fight with an equally capable adversary. Actually, I would pity the pilots in the other aircraft because their fates would be sealed.

It’s been a long discussion so far which is better and since this debacle ctarted over here a lot has changes.

The result is everyone know which one is actually superior.Typhoon was said to be the best after raptor but During IAF assessment for mmrca it was nowhere and IAF ordered a 272 42 sukhoimki

With a aesa radar with a range of 400km in development sukhoimki is going to be more lethal than before.

Though having it’s canards away from its wings give typhoon a good maneuverability but its not very stable aerodynamically.Still I will put it at the top of all except sukhoi30mki or sukhoi35BM.

Also a jet is as effective as its other equipments are sukhoi score a big in that case.While Typhoon is a proven airsuperiority machine only (though tranch 3 will be a little better)
Su mki 35 outdo it with a very big margin in a2g attack with their Brahmos missile completely outdo it.

But still typhoon is the best when compares to F_15 16 18

Now comes the question which is better than su mki and 35bm then.

Without a doubt RAPTOR.

It will kill it completely though it’s new radar under development will be able to provide it more edge against it But still a raptor upgraded with better avionics and system generated with F-35 program will out class it with a kill ratio of 10:1
even better may be.

But Raptor is a tactical fighter and costs much more than you read with just 50% life of a jet.

But USA got the money to spend on it and whatever they wish to do it’s by far much better than sukhoimki or 35bm.

The real battle will be in b/w Indorussian FGFA T-50 . It’s protoype su-47 is way better than F-35 and even raptor under it’s current configuration will not be able to match that.

But again USA got all the resources they could do a few changes in the design and make raptor to take the charge again and start its production when they need it. And its no one guess how big their production line is.

The real battle will be in b/w T-50 and raptor or JSF.

Without a second though i would put all my money when it comes to the quality of a jet and aerodynamics stability comes on T_%)
Russians are way ahead USA in that case.
But when it comes to avionics weaponry raptor will out beat it too.

But then russian are coming up with their own improved aesaradar with a range of 400km.
And avionics in hand of India will mean T-50 is not going to be behind even in that case.

Anyway I don’t think no nation have that kind of arsenal to go with a war with USA and neither USA will dare to go up against Russia. Though we may see F-35 in paki hand in future taking charge against Indians T-50 .

I agree that the F22 is the best fighter jet in the world, but only on paper. Let me ask you a simple question. Has the US ever fielded the jet in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? The answer is a big NO. Why? When you have the best combat jet available to you, you might as well use it and show the world its awesome might in a practical scenario. The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale were used for ground attack duties and they came out with flying colors despite the fact that Libya had decent air defence systems which they had procured from Russia. Now one might argue that fielding the F22 in these wars was not necessary, so the question remains, WHEN is an appropriate moment to use the Raptor? Airshows and combat excercises? Another excuse would be, it is not feasible to deploy the F22 so far away from home owing to the high level infrastructure and maintenance costs involved.

Its like saying I have a Rolls Royce in my garage but I don’t use it because its expensive to maintain. Therefore its equal to the other junk I have lying around in my garage. Thats EXACTLY what the F22 is. An expensive junk and a waste of tax payers dollars. It has never been used in actual combat and highly doubtful it ever will be.

By the way, the Indo-Russian PAK FA is already underway as is the Chinese J20 with prototypes already flying in the air. In fact the third prototype of the PAK FA recently flew to test the on-board radars while the flight systems and engines have already been tested. While it sacrifices come degree of stealth for maneuverability, it makes up for it in greater range, payload, speed and agility. Best part? Its half the price of the Raptor allowing it to be mass produced. Orders for 250 units each for the Russian and Indian Airforce

Please come out the government propaganda stupor! The F22 is a failure and finally defense experts from YOUR country have admitted that, your president has admitted it was a waste of money, the US congress has scrapped the program. The Raptor is DEAD! With a $150 million per plane pricetag, and $65 billion in development costs, to say that the Raptor is expensive is an understatement.

The jet is so “advanced”, it suffers a CRITICAL failure after every 1.7 hours of flight. The so called “awesome” stealth material used on the plane, is highly susceptible to rain. Earlier in 2011, the entire Raptor fleet was grounded does to problems in its oxygen units. Initial concern arose after a fatal crash in Nov 2010. Investigators at the site believed that the onboard oxygen system might have failed, prompting officials to restrict the Raptor to operations below 25,000.

And these aren’t the first technical issues faced by the Raptor.
There have been previous mechanical and software problems, too – the sort of things which, to be fair, are not unique to the F-22. Last year, rust problems briefly grounded most of the F-22 force. A whole squadron of Raptors had to turn back from a planned flight from Virginia to Japan in 2007 when their navigational systems went haywire as the planes crossed the International Date Line. In 2006, an F-22 pilot was stuck in his plane on the ground for five hours because the canopy wouldn’t open.

While issues can occur with any jet from any country but when you have such “advanced” jets in your arsenal, you would at least expect to have an airworthy fleet with minimum fuss during peacetime.

If you still think that the F22 Raptor the best combat jet, you are in for a rude shock very soon. The Indo-Russian PAK FA is on the cards as is the Chinese J-20. Prototypes have already flown and tests are underway.

@ Neil
Its right that the f22 had very very much Problems .
And its right that you hate this plane .
Why coast the f22 so much.
You say that you can use a Cobra in a dogfight.
You say that the f22 is only a fail in the aircraft.
I have spoken with pilots over jears on airshows.
One 15 pilot has sad to me that he was in a dogfight with a f22.
He hadnt a great chance.
One f22 has battled 3 f15 in 5 minutes.
Happy birthday you have more anticipation then a pilot !

Okay first of all had a hard time making sense of what you have written. However I will take apart your statements, point by point…

“Its right that the f22 had very very much Problems”
Neil: Thank you for agreeing with me.

“And its right that you hate this plane.”
Neil: I don’t hate this plane. However I do hate the fact that this plane has received more hype than it actually deserved. The USAF will always put this piece of junk on high pedestal to cover the billions of dollars of blunders they have made. What they don’t realize, is that the whole world is already aware of it. I wish the USAF would have gone with YF-23 blackwidow. It was less maneuverable than the F22 but more stealthier. Looks like a beast though!

“You say that you can use a Cobra in a dogfight.”
Neil: I have already explained WHY, cobra tactics can be useful in a dogfight if used correctly. By the way, every combat tactic has a counter tactic. So before you start ranting, I have only said the Cobra is a useful tactic. I am not saying it is an unbeatable tactic.

“You say that the f22 is only a fail in the aircraft.”
Neil: I am not claiming this. Ask the American congress who shelved the project due to cost overruns and critical issues.

“I have spoken with pilots over jears on airshows.”
Neil: Good for you. Whatever it means..

“One 15 pilot has sad to me that he was in a dogfight with a f22.
He hadnt a great chance.”
Neil: Obviously! In a dogfight scenario, F22 will certainly beat the F15 since it is more maneuverable. An F22 has 2D thrust vectoring while the F15 doesn’t. Put up an F15 against a 3D thrust vectored SU-37, the result would be the same. However, we are not comparing F15s with F22 are we? Please stick to the point.

“Happy birthday you have more anticipation then a pilot!”
Neil: Seriously Dude! I have no idea what that sentence even means. However if that was meant to be an insult, I hope you do a better job next time. Seriously!! LMAO!

“The F22 wasnt in lybia because the most then are grounded.”
Neil: Thanks for proving my point. It spends half of the year suffering critical failures and the other half staying grounded. Sounds like a typical insufferable American Brat.
If it can spare a few weeks out of the Intensive Care Unit, it does airshow tricks while people like you go “ooh, ahh, what an awesome plane!” and then back again into the hangars where it belongs.

I will say this again for your benefit. Look at things objectively. Do not be fed by propaganda. Understand this simple logic….

American pilots will say they are the best and they have the best planes.
Russian pilots will say they are the best and they have the best planes.

Maybe they are right, may be they are wrong. We can only speculate. However, if you have to criticize something or someone, please at least try to provide a logical explanation that makes sense.

By the way….. Please at leat try to present logical and debatable counter arguments instead of making baseless and unverifiable claims like “I spoke to a pilot from an airshow” or something similar. When I present an argument, I at least try to explain my points and can provide sources for my claims. Can’t you do the same? Your arguments at best sound like an undigested bean trying to negotiate its way out of a cow’s digestive system.

It would be nice if most of you knew how to spell common words.The reality is that they are all fine aircraft in their own right and all of the pilots have reasonable skill’s.The goal is to never have to use them in actual combat. I have been there and there is nothing fun about it. There is no glory because even the winner had to kill a human being to be a so called winner. Be thrilled if your favorite wins enough votes in an airshow to be called the best and enjoy some national pride. I respect ALL fighter pilots regardless of where they come from because they have a critical job to protect their countrymen. They are real Men/Women. We should do our part to protect them from ever being in Harms Way. No matter what God you believe in, We are ALL his children and should act so accordingly. My Vote is they are ALL the BEST.If you disagree then I am happy you have the right to disagree.

I totally agree with you. The monstrosity of war can only be defined by the people who have faced it. Like someone once said, “In a war, nobody wins”. But sometimes it is necessary to engage in a war in order to restore peace. Wishing for a world without war is unfortunately nothing more than just that, wishful thinking. That is the cold, hard bitter, truth.

Off topic:
I support America’s fight against terrorism. But the collateral damage and destruction is just too much given the fact that the US has the most sophisticated weaponry, technology and precision guided weapons at her disposal. A few weeks back many innocent people died in US drone strikes in Pakistan. This is nothing new and has happened in Afghanistan in Iraq and now in Pakistan. If you are an American citizen, let me ask you this simple question. If there is a murderer hiding in the next house, would you expect a drone strike to also blow you to kingdom come?

On one hand they are attacking terrorists on Pakistani soil and on the other hand they are funding the Pakistan government to fight terrorism when they are well aware that most of these funds are diverted by the Pakistani ISI and Pakistani army to aid the terrorists in the first place. Its a double game which is going on for years and the whole world knows it. India, on several occasions have put up these issues at the UN but the scenario changed only a little bit after the 9/11 atrocity. Before that, Pakistan was like a brother from another mother.

The following should be an eye-opener for American citizens although the US government is already aware of the same.

They are nice planes. F22 doesn’t need music to sell its tough and thorough. But it would be nice to here some kick butt rock dubbed in. That will change some moods. As far as the SU, nice breaking but what about the ability to shoot down yor opponent LONG before they even know you are near. The F22 scares the crap out of the F18 Superhornet pilots. During mock dog fights, the F18 pilots didn’t even see them on radar and were being shot down by the F22.

What you see an F22 do during air shows it can do it with full combat load.
The SU37 can’t do half that stuff with combat load.
Remember the MIG29? The world was amaze at its agility, thrust etc. F16 and F15 has shot them out of the sky every time they met.

How many flight hours does the average Russian pilot get and how many does the US and European pilots get.
When it comes to pilots, Israel is number one, period.

F22 pilots are rookies learning to be combat pilots while they learning how to best fly the F22.
Yet they beat seasoned Top Gun pilots flying f15’s.
Do not forget that, F15’s also scored kills against the F22 do to F22 pilots using to much trust vectoring bleeding speed, new tactics made it possible for F15 pilots to shot them down when they made that mistake.
Indian MK30 also experienced that, F15 shooting them down when they bleed to much speed using thrust vectoring.
The F22 turning radius is smaller that the of the MK30. So how can you say it is not agile.

Add to that that the F22 still not at its final configuration, updates are going to be done for years to come.
Still they technology, radar surpasses that of any Soviet plane out there.
Super cruise, forgot about that?

If the B1 R comes through it can carry dozens of amraams while flying miles behind the F22 which will target enemy aircraft send info to B1 r’s and they can launch hundreds of amraams in seconds, like firing a shotgun shell full of amraams at incoming enemy planes.

F-18 E/F is quite different from that of the classic F-18. It is equipped with an APG-79 AESA radar, has RAM coatings to reduce RCS and excellent avionics. However the flight characteristics are not too different from the classic hornet family which never was known to be highly maneuverable. The fact that it lacks Thrust vectored engines does not help either. The APG-79 AESA radar is considered to have slightly better range performance than the Joint strike Fighter’s APG-81 AESA, but inferior to the F-22A’s larger APG-77. Therefore you need to have a radar which is more powerful to challenge an F-22 effectively in BVR combat and excellent maneuverability to challenge the raptor in WVR combat. Therefore it should not come as a surprise that super hornet pilots are scared of a highly maneuverable stealth fighter having 2D thrust vectoring like the F-22.

The SU-30/35/37 family is a different story altogether. The Sukhoi Su-37 is a supermaneuverable multirole jet fighter. In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that the advantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes to the Flanker. Given that operational Flankers span variants from B through H, and type designations from Su-27S, through Su-30s to Su-35s, there are a wide range of configurations possible.

When this post was created, the only aircraft in the world coming close to the Raptor’s capabilities were the EF typhoon, su-30/37.

However, since 2010, the F22/F-35 has a new adversary in the Indo/Russian 5th generation fighter the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50. It is going to have 3D Thrust vectoring as compared to the Raptor’s 2D. The T-50 has been designed to be more maneuverable than the F-22 Raptor at the cost of making it less stealthy than the F-22. One of the design elements that have such an effect is the Leading Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON).

The PAK FA SH121 radar complex includes three X-Band AESA radars located on the front and sides of the aircraft. These will be accompanied by L-Band radars on the wing leading edges. L-Band radars are proven to have increased effectiveness against very low observable (VLO) targets (read F-22/F-35) which are optimized only against X-Band frequencies, but their longer wavelengths reduce their resolution.

In conclusion, the F-22 should be compared to the PAK FA or maybe even the Chinese J-20 (also a 5th generation) fighter.

If i was Russian prob would go with
Russian tech , if European I would go with tech
But as an American with all the respect for opponent techs , send a few robots to fun around mars for a few years and than we talk about who has superior tech

Augie you are another ignoramus who is driven by blind Nationalism. In fact you seem to be too lazy to type coherent sentences. Therefore hopes of educating you are quite slim indeed! Nevertheless I will try to be as succinct as possible.
America is a world power, has loads of money and has a high standard of living as well as excellent work infrastructure. There is no denying that. If this is making you feel superior you have another thing coming!
Now let me begin with a history lesson! During the later days of WW II, there was fierce competition between the Russians and Americans as to who can get their hands first on the best German scientific minds and scientific secrets. Technologically, the Germans were far more advanced than the allied nations combined. In fact they would have probably won the war had it not been for Hitler’s mad man antics, ego driven strategies, general stupidity of the third reich and severe lack of diplomacy. Anyway….by the time the war ended, the best German scientific minds went to America with Russia primarily getting the second hand stuff. The cold war had begun even before WW II had ended.
Thanks to Operation Paperclip, America got Wernher Von Braun, a Nazi Scientist and one of the pioneers behind the feared German V2 rockets. Thus through Von Braun, America got access to superior rocket technology which eventually led to the development of the Saturn V booster rocket which powered the Apollo mission, landing the first man on the moon. In fact NASA described Wernher Von Braun as the “Greatest rocket scientist in history”. He continued to head the Apollo space missions till his retirement from Nasa in 1972. Thus to conclude, had it not been for Von Braun, the Russians would have probably landed the first man on the moon.
In fact America and Russia’s advancement into Jet propulsion, Aircraft technology, atomic warfare, Ballistic Missiles were already thought of and advanced on, by the Germans. Thus the so called super powers simply “stole” the already mature technologies and refined them further with the help of the scientists who pioneered those technologies in the first place.
Lastly, NASA personnel include mathematicians, scientists and engineers from multiple nations which do not have funds for such large scale space programs. Therefore they come to America to seek jobs in the aerospace industry which readily accepts them.
Therefore my naive little friend, I would urge you to think twice before you make any offhand statements about American superiority. Having more money can simply provide greater material comforts when in fact you still remain as ornery as the guy who collects your garbage.

Wow! Way too much testosterone on this thread. I was compelled to post because I have never read anyone post with less understanding of the procurement and employment military weapons systems than Neil. The reason the Raptor was discontinued was indeed because it was too expensive. But it was not because it was a failure. It was designed to counter Russian and Chinese aircraft whose development has been delayed numerous times. Now, with 187 aircraft to fullfill high CAP, and the start of production of the less expensive F-35, it only makes sense to curtail production until needed to counter an actual threat. Even as we speak, the many of the Raptor and Lightning II missions are being usurped by UAVs which will curtail the production run of the F-35.

The Raptor was never used in combat because it was not needed to put the wear on the expensive super capable aircraft when the F-15 was achieving ridiculous kill ratios. This would not only risk atrition on a fleet of only 187 planes, but also expose the actual capability of the aircraft. We had the Nighthawk for many years before it was ever used for the same reason.

Finally, one of the strengths of the US is that it does attract the best and brightest expats from the entire planet. In fact, one of the things I was taught to be proud of was that America is a “melting pot” of peoples from many races, religions and countries who claim themselves as American. My family are immigrants, and we are Americans by choice, and it does the US no shame that most everyone else would love to live as we do.

My Dear fellow, did you actually read the pearls of wisdom by some of the other posters? One such post goes like this and I quote, “send a few robots to fun around mars for a few years and than we talk about who has superior tech” and yet another gem,
“Why did wie talk about a dogfight .
The f22 Shot the enemys down before they know that the f22 is there !”

But of course you would not criticise them since they are all for the Raptor. There has not been one rational comment from anybody (lately) making sense remotely. It seems a plane HAS to be superior than the rest by default just because it is American technology. This is the kind of attitude that I severly oppose! Hey, I am all for America being technologically superior than other countries and there is no denying that. However, if you are efficient in your work, does that automatically make your co-workers inefficient?

You have stated, “The Raptor was never used in combat because it was not needed to put the wear on the expensive super capable aircraft when the F-15 was achieving ridiculous kill ratios.”

Yes the F-15 has excellent kill ratios (air to air combat), no doubt about that (50% being Israeli Pilots). However these kills ratios you are talking about, were way before the raptor recieved operational clearance. Did the f-15 see air to air combat action since 1999 (last being the kosovo conflict)? Nope. The USAF played escort, air support, transportation and strike roles in all the wars since then. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya. In each of these conflicts, the F-22 could easily have been used in ground strike roles like the Typhoon or Rafale were used in Libya. This would have given the USAF the chance to show the world the raptors capabilities and show its might. All the wars in the past decade have been against adverseries weak in aerial combat but had reasonably good air defence systems like Libya (afghanistan not so much). So the question is, what would be an ideal situation in which the Raptor can be fielded in battle? Air combat against Russia and China ONLY? Yeah right, you keep on believing that!

By the way what are the sources for your claim? I suggest you google “F-22 critical failure” and compare the search results with the search results of “F-22 (a) success”. Obviously the USAF and LM would feed the American citizens any crap to try and cover their mistakes.

As far as the JSF F-35 is concerned, the less said the better!

Problem with the typically arrogant American attitude is that they don’t know how to say these simple words which would make a world of difference, “Hey we guys are good. You guys aint bad either.”

The F-22 is superior to all the current fighter in air superiority. It’s stealth and maneuverability give it a huge advantage. The F-35 will also be a huge leap forward. The problem with both of these planes is not their weapons systems of flight characteristics, but their costs.

The F-22 was too expensive to produce at the levels the USAF wanted. Budgetary constraints have resulted in the USAF ending up with about half as many Raptors as they wanted. The F-35 has proven to be a complicated and COSTLY aircraft. Unlike the F-22, the US is willing to sell F-35’s to it’s allies. Unfortunately, like most military aircraft programs, the F-35 costs have far exceeded their original estimates, and the development has taken far longer than projected. I hear a lot of noise from the Indian fan boys, but your own LCA program has similar problems.

When operational, the F-35 will be a the hottest fighter around, but it’s unknown whether any country will be able to acquire a sufficient number of them to overcome the numerical superiority of Chinese or Russian supplied adversaries.

India recently decided to acquire the Rafale, not because it was the clear winner of any one area of performance, but because Dassault was willing to give them away at fire sale prices. The Rafale offers an incredible cost vs performance ratio.

As for the quality of American pilots, they remain among the best because the US pays to train them better. The cost of flying and maintaining fighter aircraft is astronomical. Very few countries can afford to have their pilots fly as many hours as American pilots. Some European NATO countries and Israel offer similar programs, but most other nations fly far less. US pilots are selected through testing and extensive training programs. To become a fighter pilot, an American must excel at flying and tactics, as well as beat out his classmates to get a fighter assignment. Some pilot choose heavies for airline experience, but most top pilots choose fighters. Being an effective fighter pilot does not require a PhD, but it does require extensive selection and training.

The superiority of Indian pilots is questionable. I have heard a lot about how the IAF pilots were so much better than the US jocks. When the US sent a squadron to India, they sent a operational squadron, with a normal cross section of pilots. In contrast, the IAF pilots were hand selected Top Guns. It would be like sending a US college basketball team to play the national team of another country.

I understand why Russians want to believe that the SU-37 is the best fighter, and see the US as the competition, but the Indian response baffles me. If I were Indian, I would be way more worried about China than the US. The US may have supplied Pakistan with F-16s, but the Russians have been transferring technology to China for years. The Chinese have territorial designs on huge areas of Asia, including Taiwan, parts of India and the South China Sea. If you watch CCTV, it is not hard to read between the lines and realize that China pictures itself as the next great imperial world power. As China’s economy grows, so does it’s military. India may find itself aligned, if not allied, with the US in the near future.

The F22 no doubt has excellent stealth characteristics, avionics, on board radar etc etc. However, extremely high maintenance costs and frequent mechanical and technical issues raise serious questions about effective deployment in a real wartime scenario.

As far as the F35 is concerned, the program itself is questionable given the fact that it is nowhere near the capability of the Raptor in terms of radar, maneuverability, weapons load, stealth and so on especially given the fact that rival countries like Russia and China have already deployed full functional prototypes of stealth fighters which are designed to be much more capable in terms of stealth, weapons load, maneuverability, Radar and the list could go on and on.

Cost was not the sole deciding factor in the Indian MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) competition. Had it been so, India would have gone with the MiG 35 with both eyes closed which was the cheapest of all the competing fighters and familiarity with the platform since India already operates upgraded MiG 29s. Instead The best and costliest fighters were shortlisted, namely the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Rafale has a better Air to Ground performance as compared to the Eurofighter which is better in the air to air role. Given the fact that India already has excellent air superiority fighters in the Su 30 MKI and MiG 29 upgrades, the Rafale should prove to be an extremely capable platform in the omni-role department once it comes equipped with the AESA radars and MBDA Meteors. On the cost side, Rafale has a lower life cycle cost and unit cost. Also, considering the fact that the Eurofighter has been facing spare parts shortage, Rafale was clearly the obvious choice. Finally, familiarity with the Mirage 2000 platform would mean lower infrastructural costs for the Rafale.

Its seems that the Americans are a bit sore because their aircrafts were rejected (but they did not cry as much as the Brits once the Eurofighter lost) namely, the F18 Super Hornet and F16 IN super viper. Lets take a quick look at the potential reasons why the other jets were rejected.

MiG 35: Employs 3D thrust vectoring making it super maneuverable and the only operational aircraft other than the Su 35 in the world to employ 3D TVC. Engine problems during test flights, unreliability of spares supply by MiG corporation previously and reluctance to depend completely on a single vendor for most of the country’s air defence needs led to rejection of this bird.

F16 IN: India’s arch rival Pakistan has been operating F 16 variants for decades. Although the Super Viper is far better than the latest Block 50’s acquired by Pakistan, its a new platform for the IAF whereas the PAF is already familiar with this platform.

Jas 39 Gripen: Excellent aircraft but most of the components are American (including Engine) which would mean spares shortage in the event of sanctions and lack of complete ToT, led to the Swedish entry being rejected.

The US firms did not offer Total Transfer of Technology (ToT) which was a non-negotiable part of the RFP issued. Also, fear of sanctions lead to the ousting of the American birds from the competition. The russians have their problem of unreliable spares supply, but unlike the Americans they offer everything.

India has already learnt its lesson while working on the LCA program where Lockheed Martin was hired as one of the consultants for creating the Control Law for the flight systems, the other being British Aerospace. Lockheed Martin’s involvement was terminated in 1998 as part of an embargo enacted by the U.S. in response to India’s second nuclear tests in May of that year.

Despite that, the LCA made its maiden flight in 2001 overcoming sanctions, lack of test beds, infrastructural problems etc. From there, the LCA has come a long way and uses the latest in Indian, French and Israeli Avionics and is looking good.

Having said that, US already has won a few major defence contracts lately in the form of Boeing P8i Posiedon, E2D Advanced Hawkeye, Boeing AH-64 Apache, C-17 Globemaster III, C-130J Super Hercules and Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King and the GE 404 - IN20 Engines for the first production batch of the LCA.

America is a rich country and it is true that they spend a lot on Pilot training. While India cannot even hope to match the spending power of the US, I see no harm in competing with the best and learning new strategies and Western air combat doctrines.

India although a non NATO country, is already aligned with the US, UK, Israel, France and other NATO countries in the fight against Global terrorism, counter terrorism and in keeping a check on China with whom India has long standing territorial disputes. From the US point of view, India plays an extremely important role in the sub continent, politically and militarily given the fact that their long term buddy Pakistan, is proving to be extremely un-reliable with growing anti-American sentiments within the country.

Malaysia can be a superior air power in South East Asia if he can combine the technology of Russia and Europe by having SU30 and ET at the same time. All the SEA countries have to respect Malaysia for this. Malaysia can conquere the air space of SEA in the near future.Malaysia BOLEH!!!!